human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
POSTED BY: 1kiki
UPDATED: Monday, September 14, 2026 13:16
VIEWED: 61009
PAGE 2 of 12
NASA study warns farmers must quickly adapt to climate change
https://www.slashgear.com/nasa-study-warns-farmers-must-quickly-adapt-
to-climate-change-01697799/
The science everyone needs to know about climate change, in 6 charts
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/394688
Jonah Goldberg: To fight climate change seriously, nuclear power must be on the table
https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/columns/7262897-Jonah-Goldberg-To
-fight-climate-change-seriously-nuclear-power-must-be-on-the-table
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nuclear Power is fine until they Six Sigma it.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This Simple Story Can Save the Planet
According to the best reports I’ve read, if we now start investing 2 percent of global annual G.D.P. in developing eco-friendly technologies and eco-friendly infrastructure, that should be enough to prevent catastrophic climate change. The beautiful thing about 2 percent is that even though it’s a lot of money, it’s completely feasible. If it was 20 percent then I would tell you forget about it, it’s too late. But 2 percent? The job of the average politician is to shift 2 percent of the budget from here to there. We know how to do it. We need to stay away from the apocalyptic thinking that it’s too late and the world is ending and move toward a more practical thing: 2 percent of the budget. That’s it.
Is shifting 2 percent of global G.D.P. a sufficiently compelling story?
The thing about 2 percent of G.D.P., it’s not very impressive, but that’s the whole point. It’s hopeful. It’s not like we have to completely change the entire economy and go live in caves. We just need to shift 2 percent. That’s all. So I think it’s a powerful message. And there are other stories: If you look at movements like Greta Thunberg’s and the whole youth movement, what the young people are telling the world is that you are sacrificing us on the altar of your greed and irresponsibility. It’s no longer something hazy like CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s a human drama of the old sacrificing the young. That’s a powerful story.
https://web.archive.org/web/20211110053707/https://www.nytimes.com/int
eractive/2021/11/08/magazine/yuval-noah-harari-interview.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
COP26 was a failure. Here’s what we should do instead.
Author Kevin Drum Published on November 12, 2021 – 9:14 am
The COP26 climate conference in Glasgow has been a failure. There have been a few agreements here and there, but nothing very impressive for a conference that was supposedly "make or break" for humanity.
This shouldn't surprise anyone. COP26 merely confirms what we've known for a long time: nations won't agree to cut back on profitable fossil fuel extraction and politicians don't dare promise to do anything that will annoy their constituents. This has been true for decades and it's still true.
If I were your benevolent dictator, here's what I would do:
1. Aggressively roll out wind, solar, and nuclear power. This would probably get us about halfway toward our goal of net zero carbon emissions.
2. Pour trillions of dollars into R&D looking for new technologies to reduce atmospheric CO2. This would include things like cement production and chemical manufacturing that don't benefit from green electricity, and carbon capture, which is a necessary part of meeting our goals.
3. Begin seeding the atmosphere with aerosols. If we start now, it could be done very slowly while we test for larger effects on the planet. If, instead, we wait until 2040 or 2050 to do this, it will be an emergency operation with unknown impacts.
I understand this is not a popular proposal. Hell, I don't like it much myself. But all the evidence in the world suggests that nothing else has any real chance of success. It's time to face up to that.
https://jabberwocking.com/cop26-was-a-failure-heres-what-we-should-do-
instead/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Net Zero carbon emissions is as much of a fucking dream as eradicating Covid is.
Attempting to do either will destroy the world economy, let alone both.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
3. Begin seeding the atmosphere with aerosols. If we start now, it could be done very slowly while we test for larger effects on the planet. If, instead, we wait until 2040 or 2050 to do this, it will be an emergency operation with unknown impacts.
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/study-solar-geoengineering-may-not-
be-long-term-solution-climate-change
That sounds like pure insanity.
Especially when they spent decades telling you that the aerosols from your hair spray were going to rip a hole in the ozone and turn us all into mutants.
Scientists need to be unemployed. Their jobs are not essential.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If I were benevolent dictator, I would ...
Oh, BTW, did you know that ONE space joyride by one of those trillionaires creates as much greenhouse gas emissions as the LIFETIME emissions of the poorest BILLION people????
END SPACE JOYRIDES.
And what about that COP26 (whatever the fuck THAT stands for!) hobnob? All all those jets flying hither, thither and yon, with their retinues of cars going this way and that? A bit counterproductive, wouldn't you say? I would prolly just eliminate all private jets as being far too wasteful per person-mile.
END USA MILITARY OVERSEAS DEPLOYMENT, AND END OUR CARRIER GROUPS STEAMING ALL OVER THE GLOBE. The USA military is the largest single user of energy on the globe.
ONE military jet takeoff (full afterburner) uses 96 pounds - about 14 gallons - of fuel PER SECOND.
https://www.quora.com/How-much-fuel-is-burned-by-a-fighter-plane-in-on
e-second?
Not only would there be direct fuel savings, all of that MIC production would throttle back as well. We could take all of those tanks and humvees that we have stored out in the desert and turn them into scrap for infrastructure projects.
I would REALLY work on hardening our forests against fires. That means sending crews out into the forest for months at a time, hand-thinning two-mile-wide firebreaks (to start), and definitely experiment with creating "black soil" in-situ. You could use the energy released to charge batteries, for example.
Farming and soil management is another great oppty to manage carbon. I would pay farmers who sucessfully increase the carbon content of their soils (there are all kinds of ways, such as cover crops and "green manure", but since there are SO MANY ways I would simply survey their soil over time and pay them for each increase per year, and a stipend to maintain.)
I would also create south-to-north connected biopreserves to allow species to migrate, and pre-plant some warmer-climate natives further north.
Engineers are already looking at ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from things like cement and steel production, but ... what I don't understand is why they don't use more flyash in concrete than they do now. https://www.everything-about-concrete.com/fly-ash-concrete.html You can reduce flyash waste, create a better product, and substitute out some of that energy-intensive cement.
Aside from the military, the next-biggest user of energy in the USA is transportation.
There are several components to that.
The first is that the USA has miles and miles... of miles and miles. Like Australia, Canada, and Russia, there is concentration on the coasts and a lot of emptiness in between. So a lot of miles to transit. Maybe increase railroad traffic by repairing and improving the rails, which are in a sad state of disrepair, requiring trains to go very slow on many segments. (Same can be said for east coast commuter lines. Since Superstorm Sandy, many switches and lines got flooded and degraded, never repaired, and require slow speed travel.)
Another factor is that many USA cities grew in the era of the automobile. Los Angeles is a perfect example. Spread-out populations can't be effectively served by mass transit. Part of the answer is better land use planning: mixed development. For example, my fair city approved a 100+ townhome development. Would it have killed them to require a set-aside for a coffee shop/ATM, with a pickup space for school buses and Uber/Lyft? Maybe even a small convenience store so people wouldn't have to get in their cars to pick up that last-minute bottle of milk/box of diapers/bottle of wine?
The second part would be to require better fuel efficiencies.
Also, the USA depends on extremely long supply chains. Regionalizing supply chains would require less transportation.
Plant more trees in cities. They cool the temperature (requiring less AC), soak up CO2, trap dust, and absorb noise. What's not to like?
Use solar panels on the roofs of large commercial buildings like warehouses. In windy areas
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pope Francis again calls for climate action. U.S. bishops have been all but silent
Pope Francis on Sunday once again urged political and business leaders "to act now with courage and vision" to care for the planet and its people in the face of the global climate crisis. His remarks, made at St. Peter's Square at the Vatican, came just hours after the close of a two-week United Nations climate change summit in Glasgow, Scotland.
The pope has been insistent about the importance and urgency of climate action, six years ago dedicating a major document — known as Laudato Si' — to the importance of environmental stewardship.
By contrast, Catholic bishops in the United States have generally been mum or misleading about climate change in their messaging to their congregations.
A study out last month by scholars from Creighton University in Nebraska analyzed more than 12,000 official, written communications sent to parishioners in nearly every U.S. diocese over five years beginning in June 2014.
The authors found that on the infrequent occasions that bishops mentioned climate change, they often "diminished and distanced themselves from Church teaching on this issue" and downplayed parts of Pope Francis's Laudato Si' document that conflict with American conservative political ideology.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/14/1055679802/pope-francis-again-calls-for
-climate-action-u-s-bishops-have-been-all-but-silent
U.S. Catholic bishops' silence and denialism on climate change
The Catholic Church recognizes climate change as a moral issue, has called for social action, and has the institutional potential to meaningfully address climate change. Many hoped Pope Francis's 2015 encyclical Laudato Si' would spark widespread climate action. However, our quantitative and qualitative content analyses show that U.S. Catholic bishops responsible for leading the Church were silent and denialist about climate change around Laudato Si'.
As a group, when U.S. Catholic bishops did mention climate change, they often: (a) diminished and distanced themselves from Church teaching on this issue; (b) downplayed parts of Laudato Si' that conflict with a conservative political identity/ideology; and (c) emphasized parts of Laudato Si' that correspond to a conservative political identity/ideology. On climate change, our findings indicate individual U.S. Catholic bishops' diocesan communications have collectively snuffed out the spark of Laudato Si'. Our findings suggest politics may trump religion in influencing climate change beliefs even among religious leaders, and that the American Catholic Church subtly engages in climate denialism even though its top religious leader (Pope Francis) has emphasized the scientific reality and urgency of climate change.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac25ba
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe if scientists didn't lie all the time people would believe them.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You went there, but with less subtlety than Trump and the Republican Party: Climate Change is a Hoax.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Maybe if scientists didn't lie all the time people would believe them.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Climate+Change+is+a+Hoax
What does Trump actually believe on climate change?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003
There are 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress who still deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-117th-congres
s/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hydrogen and Hybrids: Toyota CEO Defends Combustion Engines, Saying 'The Enemy Is Carbon'
This weekend Toyota's president drove a specially-equipped Corolla powered by an in-house hydrogen engine, reports Bloomberg. "Along with Mazda Motor Corp., Toyota showcased vehicles running on carbon-neutral propellants in a three-hour road race this weekend in Okayama."
Toyota's hydrogen-powered car underscores the automaker's belief that a wide variety of vehicle types — including hybrids and hydrogen-powered cars, in addition to electric vehicles — will play a role in decarbonizing its fleet over the coming decades. That puts the company in contrast to others, such as General Motors Co., Jaguar Land Rover and Volvo Car AB, which say they'll sell only EVs two decades from now. "The enemy is carbon, not internal combustion engines," Toyoda said at a briefing Saturday. "We need diverse solutions, that's the path toward challenging carbon neutrality."
Toyota says that that different emissions-reducing car technologies are needed for different regions of the world. EVs are a good option for places like Europe, where batteries can be charged with electricity derived largely from renewable sources, the automaker says. Other options, such as hydrogen or hybrids, may be a better fit in other regions.
The technology is separate from the company's other big bet on hydrogen — hydrogen fuel cells such as those that power the Mirai passenger car. While fuel cells use the chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity, which in turn runs a motor, the hydrogen engine burns the element just like gasoline. Traditional engines only need to be tweaked in minor ways, such as changing out the fuel supply and injection systems, to make them capable of running on hydrogen, Toyota Chief Engineer Naoyuki Sakamoto said in a briefing last month. That also makes the technology a way to save some of the hundreds of thousands of jobs making parts related to combustion engines that are predicted to disappear in Japan if the automotive sector makes a full shift to EVs, according to Toyoda.
https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/21/11/15/0220200/hydrogen-and-hybr
ids-toyota-ceo-defends-combustion-engines-saying-the-enemy-is-carbon
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:You went there, but with less subtlety than Trump and the Republican Party: Climate Change is a Hoax.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Maybe if scientists didn't lie all the time people would believe them.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Climate+Change+is+a+Hoax
What does Trump actually believe on climate change?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51213003
There are 139 elected officials in the 117th Congress who still deny the scientific consensus of human-caused climate change.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-deniers-117th-congres
s/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Do something about it then. You're the party with all the money.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Billions of people know that dumping their CO2 into the air is the cheapest way to get rid of it. Not so long ago, billions of people knew that dumping their sewage into lakes and rivers was the cheapest way to get rid of it. There is a long story about why people stopped dumping their sewage into their drinking water and there will be a long story about why people eventually stop dumping their wastes into their breathing air.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do something about it then. You're the party with all the money.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/big-green-push-get-rid-coal-had
-opposite-effect
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hydrogen doesn't have anywhere near the energy density of methane, let alone gasoline.
LAST I SAW ...
Therefore, it must be stored at something like 10,000-15,000 psi in order to stuff enough into a container to get meaningful energy out.
In addition, hydrogen is incredibly "leaky" - it is a very small molecule that not only escapes thru fittings, it even escapes thru container material itself. At high pressures it seeps into metal and embrittles it, and (when the metal is coated inside) acts as a solvent and peels the coating off.
MAYBE FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
There have been various attempts to store hydrogen as a metal hydride (but then you'd need to haul a fuel tank around as heavy as the vehicle itself) or combining it with boron, or developing new container material. Perhaps some of these approaches have come to fruition. But given the difficulty of fueling with, and storing hydrogen, it doesn't seem like a suitable choice for vehicles, so I'm surprised at automakers commitment to it.
It would probably work better in stationary applications, where it can be produced in situ or nearby, and used as it's produced.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Toyota Mirai features 402 miles of driving range. You will also get free $15,000 hydrogen fuel for the first 3 years. (Complimentary fuel for up to six years or $15,000 per https://www.toyota.com/mirai/ )
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hydrogen doesn't have anywhere near the energy density of methane, let alone gasoline.
The 2021 Mirai has a tank capacity of 5.6 kilos. The current 2021 price of hydrogen per kg is about $13 – $16. This high cost of hydrogen fuel may not be an immediate concern. Since this car gets 74 MPGe, this will effectively bring the cost down in half compared to an average sedan. In addition, you will get 3 years or $15,000 worth of free hydrogen when you purchase your 2021 Toyota Mirai. And the cost of hydrogen fuel after this time period is expected to be much lower.
Driving the 2021 Toyota Mirai too fast, particularly on curvy roads can lead to high consumption of hydrogen. Mirai’s fuel consumption is measured in Miles Per Gallon Equivalent (MPGe).
Its estimated fuel consumption is about 74 MPGe. However, driving too fast has been shown to drop the consumption to 40 MPGe. On very steep hills the MPGe tends to drop up to 20 MPGe, which can drastically affect the range.
The Price
The 2021 Toyota Mirai XLE is 20-percent cheaper than the 2020 model ($9,000). The price is about $49,500 or $499 on lease agreement. You will also get an APR credit of about $10,000 if you purchase your Mirai XLE before February 1, 2021.
https://www.toyota.com/mirai/
https://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/2021-toyota-mirai/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Many years ago there was a great self-heating catalyst that turned dirty-wet ethanol (and some if its water) into hydrogen to fuel fuel cells, at over 100% efficiency (due to it catalyzing some water). The previous limitations to that category of catalyst were that the catalyst had to be externally pre-heated to 500F operating temperature, and that the ethanol had to be analytically clean at the ppm/ ppb level and completely dry (ie, the kind you get from a specialty chemical manufacturer in small quantities. One of the biggest problems with dry ethanol is that it sucks water out of the air until it reaches roughly 95% ethanol concentration).
As a fuel source, ethanol handles well - far better than hydrogen. You store it and pump it at ambient temperatures and pressures. And while it burns, it's not toxic unless you ingest it in large quantities, and it doesn't explode like hydrogen. (In my own direct professional experience, I know what happens when a high-pressure hydrogen vehicle-refuel unit explodes nearby.)
Nothing ever came of that catalyst, which should have been a complete game-changer for direct-electric-drive vehicles.
It's not like there aren't better, less expensive, cheaper, easier answers than hydrogen.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:About 19.64 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) are produced from burning a gallon of gasoline that does not contain ethanol.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
It's not like there aren't better, less expensive, cheaper, easier answers than hydrogen.
About 12.72 pounds of CO2 are produced when a gallon of pure ethanol is combusted.
About 0 pounds of CO2 from hydrogen. That's why Toyota is burning hydrogen. If cheapest is the goal, then gasoline will always be the only possibility. By the way, gasoline can be made from coal. There is far more coal than petroleum in the world, if you are worried that cheap gasoline won't be available.
http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/How-much-c
arbon-dioxide-is-produced-by-burning-gasoline-and-diesel-fuel-FAQ-U.S.-Energy-Information-Administration-EIA.pdf
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Today, the National Academy of Sciences released a new report about ways to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it in the ocean.
The world emits about 35 gigatons of CO2 every year. This is the end result of an enormous global infrastructure dedicated to drilling, refining, shipping, pumping gasoline into cars, etc. As a rule of thumb, you can figure that removing CO2 is a project with a similar scale. Think about that. The NAS report estimates that we'll need to remove at least 10 gigatons of CO2 from the atmosphere every year, which means a global infrastructure about a third the size of the emission infrastructure.
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/a-research-strategy-for-oce
an-carbon-dioxide-removal-and-sequestration
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"About 12.72 pounds of CO2 are produced when a gallon of pure ethanol is combusted."
But if that ethanol is made from plants - which pull carbon from the atmosphere rather than out of the ground - the net atmospheric ethanol CO2 contribution - is zero. All it does is cycle existing CO2 from the atmosphere, to usable fuel.
It doesn't pull additional carbon from underground fossil fuels, where it's been stored for millions of years, and dump it into the air.
Plant-based ethanol is just as good as hydrogen in terms of CO2, but it doesn't require dangerous high-pressure systems and a specially-built, entirely new, infrastructure to use it. Existing pipelines, underground fuel tanks, gas-stations and so on will do the job at normal environmental temperatures and pressures, without significant personal and environmental toxicity or risk.
Putting ethanol fuel into place - faster, better, cheaper - and less risky - than hydrogen.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If you really wanted to keep fuel distribution infrastructure unchanged AND everything the same mechanically for autos, without even going electric or ethanol or hydrogen, but still go green, there is a way: The Methanol-to-Gasoline Process. MTG process normally take place into two steps, first methanol is transformed into a mixture of dimethyl-ether (DME) and water with some unreacted methanol over a non-zeolitic catalyst usually.
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Plant-based ethanol is just as good as hydrogen in terms of CO2, but it doesn't require dangerous high-pressure systems and a specially-built, entirely new, infrastructure to use it. Existing pipelines, underground fuel tanks, gas-stations and so on will do the job at normal environmental temperatures and pressures, without significant personal and environmental toxicity or risk.
Putting ethanol fuel into place - faster, better, cheaper - and less risky - than hydrogen.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/methanol-to-gasoline-
process
From 1,000 tons of methanol, the process will produce 387 tonnes of gasoline, 46 tonnes of LPG, 7 tonnes of fuel gas and 560 tonnes of water, which is recycled as process water.
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/12/dkrw-selects-ex.html
What is so green about methanol over ethanol? Biomass sources are preferable for biomethanol than for bioethanol because bioethanol is a high-cost and low-yield product. This is a promising alternative, with a diversity of fuel applications with proven environmental, economic, and consumer benefits. A mixture of gases from organic waste materials is converted to methanol in a conventional steam-reforming/water-gas shift reaction followed by high-pressure catalytic methanol synthesis.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15567030600817167
If you want to keep billions of the same old gasoline engines running and the same old gasoline stations/convenience stores, but go green, there is a way to make gasoline from biomass, but you have to spend trillions of dollars building the hydrocarbon chemical plants to do it and that is not going to happen naturally and organically. It will be a very deliberate political decision involving many decades of raucous, even violent, conflict between groups for and against. Then it takes decades to build it all, once a decision is made.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Norway again shows the all-electric car future is closer than people think
https://electrek.co/2021/12/03/norway-again-shows-all-electric-car-fut
ure-closer-than-people-think/
EU taxonomy for sustainable activities – Should nuclear energy be left out?
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/video/eu-taxonomy-
for-sustainable-activities-should-nuclear-energy-be-left-out/
Why companies are embracing sustainability
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/sponsored/PkqB18UxpLwez9s8lc7s/why-co
mpanies-are-embracing-sustainability/
Quote:
According to Dr de Hoog, “almost every time you use an app on your phone, it's basically connecting to a data center somewhere that is storing data and running some computational workloads that need to be powered by electricity. Every country in the world, even every region, has a set of generation sources for electricity in that region, which could be a mix of coal, gas, nuclear, solar, wind, biomass, multiple other sources.
Biden Orders Federal Government To Become Carbon Neutral By 2050
https://www.forbes.com/sites/annakaplan/2021/12/08/biden-orders-federa
l-government-to-become-carbon-neutral-by-2050/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JAYNEZTOWN:
Biden Orders Federal Government To Become Carbon Neutral By 2050
Biden* could even order a Value Meal at McDonalds at the drive thru unless he had a teleprompter in front of him in the car.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
“Don’t Look Up” Is as Funny and Terrifying About Global Warming as “Dr. Strangelove” Was About Nuclear War
If you’re wondering whether we’ll do anything about global warming before it destroys civilization, think about this ominous fact: It occupies barely any space in popular culture.
This contrasts with the gusher of movies and books in the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s about nuclear war. Anyone old will remember “The Day After,” “War Games,” “The Planet of the Apes,” “99 Luftballons,” and many, many more in which nuclear terror was the central subject or background.
All of this helped generate a worldwide anti-nuclear movement, which in turn generated a larger audience for anti-nuclear culture, which in turn strengthened the movement — all in a virtuous circle. In other words, we avoided atomic Armageddon in part because we spent lots of time imagining it and so were motivated not to experience it in reality. But with global warming, there are few indications that we’re imagining it at all. We’re blithely stumbling forward in a fog, with little comprehension of the catastrophe we’re stumbling toward.
The fountainhead of nuclear war culture in the U.S. was Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb,” released in 1964. It pried open space into which countless other creators rushed. “Don’t Look Up” has the potential to do the same thing for global warming.
Taken literally, the movie is about a huge comet heading directly toward us. It’s the same size as the one that hit the Gulf of Mexico in the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, which wiped out three-quarters of all species on the planet. But this is the most thinly disguised metaphor in the history of metaphors. It is in fact about our profound commitment to cooking ourselves to death. Pretending it’s about a comet, however, makes it possible for “Don’t Look Up” to fit the format of a standard blockbuster that the median moviegoer will love.
More at https://theintercept.com/2021/12/12/dont-look-up-review-adam-mckay-dr-
strangelove/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
World Petroleum Congress speakers prophesy a dark energy crisis to stall progress on the climate crisis
In a dozen speeches at the World Petroleum Congress in Houston, and no one denied fossil fuels are causing life-threatening global warming. Everyone agreed we must reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane levels.
Where the people inside the heavily-fortified convention center disagree with most of the world is how to slow emissions. The industry’s talking points called for more oil and natural gas extraction paired with expensive carbon capture technology financed with tax credits.
The World Petroleum Congress opened with a children’s choir singing the saccharine Disney tune “It’s a Small World (After All)” and ended with a menacing warning: Give us what we want, and there won’t be any trouble. Failure to provide the industry with $11.8 trillion in capital between now and 2045 will trigger an energy crisis that they insist will make the public forget all about the climate crisis.
Investors and governments are refusing to finance big fossil fuel projects with an aim to neutralizing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Big Oil is paying more for capital as investors shower clean energy companies with resources.
Petroleum executives know capital investment is a zero-sum game, and they are worried about losing the two things they need most: low-cost capital and a social contract to operate. The execs are not above implied threats if they don’t get the money they want at the price they want to pay.
Keep in mind, conferences like the World Petroleum Congress are marketing exercises, not intellectually rigorous attempts to address issues. The main goal is to inspire investors to buy shares in the event’s corporate sponsors.
Like any pep rally, cheerleaders recited standardized propaganda: An energy transition that slashes fossil fuels will be messy and potentially violent. Climate mitigation efforts are causing the current energy shortfalls. Environmental regulations are scaring away investors. Switching to other fuel sources is too damn complicated. Big Oil has all the answers.
All they need is $11.8 trillion.
They want to spend the money on drilling new wells and building massive carbon capture projects. Capturing that investment would also hobble development of clean energy, their main competitors who have made amazing progress in winning market share.
Investments in wind turbines have brought down prices by 90 percent. Solar costs are down 70 percent. A trillion dollars spent on new batteries and new mines to extract critical metals would similarly bring energy storage costs down.
Clean energy executives insist that with a fraction of $11.8 trillion they can replace fossil fuels and meet growing global demand, no matter what the oil industry’s scientists claim. They also have clever engineers and new technologies.
This debate is about money. Oil CEOs want government handouts in the form of tax credits to capture the carbon they make money releasing. They also want the federal government to pay for their research.
We cannot allow oil executives to blackmail us. They are not prophets; they are business people looking for profits.
Governments should set limits on emissions, level out the subsidies and let the industry that supplies the most affordable, reliable and clean energy win.
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20211211054142/https://www.houstonchronicl
e.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Tomlinson-Don-t-fall-for-Big-Oil-s-16688970.php
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The IMF estimates that U.S. fossil fuel subsidies totaled $662 billion in 2020
What does $662 billion a year look like?*
Affordable child care & free universal Pre-K $47 billion/year
Tuition free public universities $80 billion/year
12 weeks national paid leave $55 billion/year
Publicly owned broadband $15 billion/year
Homes for all guarantee $150 billion/year
100% renewable in the U.S. by 2050 $270 billion/year
Add dental, hearing, vision to Medicare $36 billion/year
$9 billion remainder.
*10 year estimates except 100% renewable
SOURCES
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/23/Still-Not-Get
ting-Energy-Prices-Right-A-Global-and-Country-Update-of-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-466004
https://berniesanders.com/issues/free-child-care-and-pre-k-all/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/business/tuition-free-college.html
https://berniesanders.com/issues/high-speed-internet-all/
https://www.filesforprogress.org/reports/homes_for_all.pdf
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-02/hr1185_2.pdf
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2019-12/hr3_complete.pdf
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/20/upshot/democrats-trim-r
econciliation-bill.html
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/the-global-price-tag-for-100-percent-rene
wable-energy-73-trillion
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProEarth/comments/qldfxg/what_could_fossil_fu
el_subsidies_pay_for/ 
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"My friend the Communist.
Holds meetings in his office.
I can't afford his gas.
So I'm stuck here watching TV"
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Rising coal consumption could bring global coal-fired power demand to a new all-time high this year, undermining efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said on Friday.
The IEA said global power generation from coal was expected to reach 10,350 terawatt-hours in 2021, up 9%.
According to a report published this week by researchers with China's State Grid Corporation, energy security concerns mean the country is likely to build as much as 150 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-fired power capacity over the 2021-2025 period, bringing the total to 1,230 GW.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/17/business/coal-climate-energy-iea-report
-intl/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Controversial Plan to Vacuum Carbon Out of the Atmosphere
How much does it cost to do this?
The estimate that I most often heard is that right now the cheapest they can do is about $500 per ton of CO2. Everyone who looks at this field basically says that that is way too much. That is way too expensive to be able to do what we need to do. Because the IPCC was talking about removing 10 gigatons a year, which is billions of tons. So at $500 per ton, you’re talking about trillions and trillions of dollars. ($5 trillion to remove 10 billion metric tons of CO2. A metric tonne weighs 2,204.62 pounds or 1,000 kilograms. United States emitted 5.1 billion metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide in 2019, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 33.1 billion metric tons.)
So, what price does it need to get to? No one really knows. But if it were around $100 per ton, then there starts to be a more of a market for this stuff. If you got it down to $50 or $10 a ton, then you’re really talking.
More at https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/direct-air-carbon-capture-technol
ogy-clive-thompson.html
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-united-states-a
nd-world-emit-each-year-energy-sources
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The death of the Build Back Better Act would truly be a disaster for the environment.
The Build Back Better Act might be dead. Or maybe it’s just on life support. Nobody but Joe Manchin can say for sure. The West Virginia senator ambushed his party on Sunday by announcing he was a hard no on the bill, imperiling the core of the Biden administration’s domestic agenda. After the initial furious reaction, both the White House and Democrats in Congress have begun trying to rescue negotiations, but their chance of success is unclear.
One thing is quite certain, though: If the defibrillators fail and President Joe Biden can’t resuscitate a deal, it will be an absolute catastrophe for America’s attempts to combat global warming. The bill that House Democrats passed in November was not everything clean energy and environmental activists had hoped, since some of its most aggressive proposals to limit greenhouse gasses were stripped to appease Manchin. But by providing hundreds of billions of dollars to speed up the country’s green transition, it would have been an absolutely crucial and historic step toward meeting the climate goals Biden announced when the U.S. rejoined the Paris accords earlier this year. Without it, the country is unlikely to come anywhere near those targets, even if in an abstract, technical sense they’d still be within reach.
“Let me put it this way. The U.S. can still achieve its [Paris commitments] through pathways that don’t require Build Back Better, which lean heavily on federal regulation and state action,” Anand Gopal, executive director of strategy and policy at the climate think tank Energy Innovation, told me. “But it will be damn hard.”
Here’s a simple way to think about the blow U.S. climate policy is facing. The Biden administration has pledged to reduce U.S. emissions 50 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Under the House legislation, the United States would cut its carbon footprint by 44 percent, according to an analysis by the REPEAT Project at Princeton’s Zero Lab. But under current law, the U.S. would only cut emissions by 27 percent—not even in the ballpark.
It is possible that the Princeton analysis is overly optimistic about the impact Build Back Better would have. For instance, it factors in reductions from a fee on methane included in the House bill, which looked like it would be pared back in any final version. But almost every analysis of the bill’s key pieces has found that it would have a dramatic impact and potentially put our Paris targets within reach, thanks to roughly $325 billion of green energy, electric vehicle, and other tax credits that anchor its climate section (the bill’s total spending on climate amounts to $555 billion). Those subsidies would bring down the cost of a new solar or wind plant by 30 percent, and shave thousands from the price of an EV, making clean tech even more competitive than it already is .
Without Build Back Better, the Biden administration will be left to rely almost exclusively on its regulatory powers to curb emissions.
More at https://slate.com/business/2021/12/manchin-build-back-better-environme
nt-biden.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Normally when a thread devolves to endless trolling between you and Jack I don't scroll up much. But I'm glad I made an exception and found an on-topic reply from you!
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
If you really wanted to keep fuel distribution infrastructure unchanged AND everything the same mechanically for autos, without even going electric or ethanol or hydrogen, but still go green, there is a way: The Methanol-to-Gasoline Process.
FWIW I think IC engines are far too inefficient. So I wouldn't necessarily want to keep everything the same.
The whole thing about ethanol being inefficient was supposedly proved once-and-for-all by calculations done at - iirc - Cornell. At the time the paper came out I actually wrote to them because I was curious about their assumptions behind their calculations. (To get it out of the way, I never got an answer.)
But first of all, they based their calculation on corn. They didn't seem to consider any other kind of plant material. And they based their 'efficiency' calculations on unstated inputs to corn cultivation.
My question to them was about the corn cultivation specifically.
Corn grown for human food has extremely high inputs. It has to be a popular edible kind, it has to be perfect (no blemishes), and if dried, it has to be dried well-enough to not have mold growing on it (Aspergillus flavus - the source of liver-cancer-causing aflatoxin).
Even corn grown for animal feed has a low part per BILLION USDA limit for aflatoxin (20ppb).
To get that high yield of high-quality food/ feed corn many growers resort to planting expensive GMO corn with Bt DNA (Bacillus thuringiensis) genes (to kill off caterpillars and worms that dare munch on the corn plants), and with additional GMO genes for resistance to as many as 5 herbicides. And of course it has to be cultivated, fertilized, 'herbicided', and often irrigated. And after harvesting, unless it's sold fresh as table corn, it needs to be dried enough to not support mold. Just the drying alone requires a huge amount of energy.
That's a lot of energy inputs for traditionally grown corn! My question to the researchers was, did they assume those inputs? Or did they assume that growers might plant generic corn on marginal lands with few, if any, cultivation input$$$? To me, the assumptions behind their calculations could make all the difference in their conclusion.
But as I said, I never did get an answer.
Anyway, the other problem I have is with IC engines. They're terribly inefficient. And even if you're burning biomethanol-sourced fuel you're still putting out fuel vapors and 'products of combustion' - CO, NOx, SOx, aldehydes, ketones, PM10/2.5/0.1 etc.
The self-heating catalyst I read about is over 100% efficient at converting ('reforming') dirty, wet ethanol into hydrogen (because it converts some of the water as well). And of course once you have electricity from your hydrogen fuel-cell, direct electric drive eliminates the need for a transmission (and it has maximum torque at zero rpm), along with regenerative braking that helps reduce energy loss during stopping.
Meanwhile, the infrastructure remains completely intact. And during the transition, it would only need to be partially converted for ethanol, to serve both traditional hydrocarbon fuels and ethanol.
Ethanol/ electric transportation really is "faster, better, cheaper".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Arctic sea ice reaches its minimum each September. September Arctic sea ice is now declining at a rate of 13% per decade, relative to the 1981 to 2010 average. This graph shows the annual Arctic sea ice minimum each September since 1979, derived from satellite observations.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hyundai shuts down its engine development team amid focus on electric cars
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Anyway, the other problem I have is with IC engines. They're terribly inefficient.
Hyundai reportedly had 12,000 people working on engines, but they are now being transferred to EV powertrain development: "Researchers at the engine design unit have moved to the electrification design center, leaving only some to modify existing engines. The powertrain system development center is transforming into an electrification test center, while the powertrain performance development center is becoming an electrification performance development center."
https://electrek.co/2021/12/28/hyundai-shuts-down-engine-development-t
eam-focus-electric-cars/
In 2021 Hyundai will sell about 675,375 units, representing 5.27% of the USA market.
https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/hyundai-us-sales-figures/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
New data suggests a massive collapse of Antarctic’s Thwaites Glacier in as little as five years
One thing that’s hard to grasp about the climate crisis is that big changes can happen fast. In 2019, I was aboard the Nathaniel B. Palmer, a 308-foot-long scientific research vessel, cruising in front of the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica. One day, we were sailing in clear seas in front of the glacier. The next day, we were surrounded by icebergs the size of aircraft carriers.
As we later learned from satellite images, in a matter of 48 hours or so, a mélange of ice about 21 miles wide and 15 miles deep had cracked up and scattered into the sea.
It was a spooky moment. Thwaites Glacier is the size of Florida. It is the cork in the bottle of the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 10 feet. The mélange that disintegrated was not part of the glacier itself, but a mix of icebergs and sea ice that had cozied up next to it. Still, the idea that it could just fall apart overnight was mind-blowing.
As it turns out, the ice breakup I witnessed was not a freak event. A few weeks ago, scientists participating in the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration, a $25 million five-year-long joint research program between the National Science Foundation in the U.S. and the Natural Environment Research Council in the U.K., presented their latest research. They described the discovery of cracks and fissures in the Thwaites eastern ice shelf, predicting that the ice shelf could fracture like a shattered car window in as little as five years. “It won’t scatter out into sea as quickly as what you saw when you were down there,” Erin Pettit, a glaciologist at Oregon State University and one of the lead principal investigators in the ITGC, later told me. “But the basic process is the same. The ice shelf is breaking up and could be gone in less than a decade.”
Given the ongoing war for American democracy and the deadly toll of the Covid pandemic, the loss of an ice shelf on a far-away continent populated by penguins might not seem to be big news. But in fact, the West Antarctic ice sheet is one of the most important tipping points in the Earth’s climate system. If Thwaites Glacier collapses, it opens the door for the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet to slide into the sea. Globally, 250 million people live within three feet of high tide lines. Ten feet of sea level rise would be a world-bending catastrophe. It’s not only goodbye Miami, but goodbye to virtually every low-lying coastal city in the world.
More at https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/doomsday-glaci
er-thwaites-antarctica-climate-crisis-1273841/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The case for a more radical climate movement
Author Andreas Malm on the failures of climate activism and the need for escalation.
Has the climate movement failed?
It’s hard to look at the world at this moment and not conclude that the answer is yes. Despite all the activism, despite all the protests, despite all the warnings, the world is still in many ways hostage to the fossil fuel industry.
A new book by Andreas Malm, a professor of human ecology at Sweden’s Lund University, asks a simple but perplexing question: Given the stakes, why hasn’t the global climate movement become far more radical than it is?
It’s a fair question. If we as a species were serious, if we really believed what we already know about climate change, we would be doing everything humanly possible to shift course. And yet we’re not. Even the most ambitious policy proposals on the table, with little chance of passing, are scarcely sufficient. This is the starting point of Malm’s book, and if you follow his logic it leads to some conclusions you may find uncomfortable.
He says it bluntly: We should “damage and destroy new CO2-emitting devices. Put them out of commission, pick them apart, demolish them, burn them, blow them up. Let the capitalists who keep investing in the fire know that their properties will be trashed.” For Malm, we have a choice: Destroy the property that’s destroying the planet, or sacrifice the Earth on the altar of that property.
Malm’s book — it’s titled How to Blow Up a Pipeline — is obviously meant to provoke. But embedded in the provocation is a morally serious challenge to how we think about, and act on, the crisis humanity faces. And to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure how I feel about it. For instance, I think his summons to violence vastly overstates our ability to “control” such violence once it’s unleashed. I’m also less confident in the strategic utility of violence (even if it’s limited to the destruction of property, as Malm recommends) considering the enormous blowback that might result from it.
I reached out to him for this week’s episode of Vox Conversations to talk about how we got here, why he says it’s time to escalate, and the problems — both obvious and subtle — with such a radical approach.
More at https://www.vox.com/vox-conversations-podcast/22691428/vox-conversatio
ns-climate-change-andreas-malm
Download the free book by Andreas Malm, How To Blow Up A Pipeline -- Learning to Fight in a World on Fire from the mirrors at https://libgen.unblockit.tv/search.php?req=Andreas+Malm+Pipeline
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
https://getcomics.info/other-comics/firefly-35-2021/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Greetings from COP26
Before arriving in Glasgow, the phrase I heard most in connection with the twenty-sixth Conference of the Parties for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26) wasn’t “just transition” or “sustainability” or “resilience.” It wasn’t “carbon capture and storage” or “green hydrogen” or “renewable energy.” It was “shitshow.”
I heard this from friends, activists, university colleagues. Everyone agreed that COP26 would be some kind of performance, the needle on the end of delusion. Greta Thunberg put it best in a speech she delivered one month before the conference at the Youth4Climate summit in Milan: “Green economy blah blah blah, net zero by 2050 blah blah blah . . . climate neutral blah blah blah . . . Our hopes and dreams drown in their empty words and promises.” Only nonsense named the truth of what would take place. Of what wouldn’t take place.
The heads of state themselves seemed primed for failure. On October 25, a week before COP26 began, British prime minister Boris Johnson addressed twenty-five of the planet’s future leaders at the Children’s Climate Press Conference in Downing Street. Hunched over a desk, his tie twisted, he lowered his eyes and mumbled discouraging words. “I’m very worried,” he said, “because it might go wrong, and we might not get the agreements that we need.”
A few days later, President Biden announced a much anticipated “framework” for the Build Back Better Act. A bargaining chip of sorts, robust regulations at home would restore confidence in the United States as a climate leader abroad. Unfortunately, its promised clean energy standard was now missing the key mechanism to transition the entire electricity sector (the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions after transportation) to renewable energy by 2035. Gone, too, were penalties for polluting industries and a border tax on imports from polluting nations. Without these, the goal of halving 2005-level emissions by 2030 was unlikely. Gutted, the bill would bleed out little more than $300 billion in tax incentives for new-fangled technology.
Even the president of COP26, Alok Sharma, admitted that the “overarching ambition” of the conference wasn’t to prevent more than 1.5ºC of warming, which the 2015 Paris Agreement warned against, but simply to sustain belief that achieving the target was possible. Forget a more rigorous plan or more just policies: just don’t renege on a (nonbinding) promise you made six years ago. Banners proclaiming “Keep 1.5ºC Alive” were hung around the city. Inside the conference, a mural showed a young brown girl with gold earrings, wearing a black shirt that read “1.5 TO STAY ALIVE.” She stood in water up to her neck. Behind her, a mountain blazed.
More at https://thebaffler.com/salvos/the-shitshow-in-glasgow-dean-wilson
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All the Beijing Winter Olympics snow is human-made. In an Olympic first, though not an achievement to boast about, climate variability has forced the Winter Games to be virtually 100% reliant on artificial snow. The venues are surrounded by an endless brown, dry landscape completely devoid of snow -- part of a trend that is taking place across winter sports venues around the world.
Just one of the 21 cities that have hosted the Winter Olympics in the past 50 years will have a climate suitable for winter sports by the end of the century, a recent study found, if fossil fuel emissions remain unchecked.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/weather/artificial-snow-beijing-olympic
s-climate/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Western U.S. and Northern Mexico are experiencing their driest period in at least 1,200 years, according to the new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The last comparable – though not as severe – multi-decade megadrought occurred in the 1500s.
Williams looked at tree-ring data from thousands of sites to conduct the research. They sampled data collected from live trees, dead trees and wood beams preserved at Native American archeological sites. The tree rings gave Williams an insight into drought events dating back to the year 800 AD.
Williams said roughly one-fifth of the current megadrought can be attributed to human-caused climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions are warming the world, speeding evaporation, and disrupting weather patterns.
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/14/1080302434/study-finds-western-megadrou
ght-is-the-worst-in-1-200-years
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Options for storing wind and solar energy go beyond batteries
Most people only think of batteries when imagining how to store renewable energy. But there are many more ways to hold onto wind and solar power during those times when the wind blows too fast, and the sun shines too bright.
Green hydrogen from Mitsubishi’s Utah facility is already profitable in the electricity markets in the Western Interconnection grid. Green hydrogen could also make money in Europe, where natural gas prices are currently 10 times higher than in the United States.
Mitsubishi Power is developing an Advanced Clean Energy Storage system in Delta, Utah for making green hydrogen. The company plans to use surplus wind and solar power to make green hydrogen, then store it for times when wind and solar run short. Modified natural gas turbines can blend in hydrogen with minimal emissions.
Gas turbine driven electric generators burn natural gas with up to 30 percent green hydrogen without trouble, but Mitsubishi hopes to deliver 100 percent hydrogen pollution-free turbines by 2030. For now, standard gas turbines release highly-polluting nitrous oxides when burning more than 30 percent green hydrogen because the flame is too hot. https://insideepa.com/share/227828
Bloom Energy, a California fuel cell manufacturer, has spent the last decade selling modules that turn natural gas and biogas into electricity. But the same cells operated in reverse become electrolyzers, converting electricity and water into hydrogen and oxygen. https://www.bloomenergy.com/
“Our costs have come down almost every year, on a curve of 12 percent per year,” said Sharelynn Moore, executive vice president of strategy and business development. “We can take excess wind here in Texas, excess solar, and with our electrolyzer, we can produce hydrogen.”
Instead of relying on natural gas from frozen wellheads during the next Arctic blast, Texas could instead rely on free-flowing green hydrogen stored in salt caverns.
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20220313173523/https://www.houstonchronicl
e.com/business/article/Options-for-storing-wind-and-solar-energy-go-16992090.php
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Comparing the Operating Costs of Electric Vehicles and Gas-Powered Vehicles
Gasoline prices are inherently volatile—and they always will be
Overall, as of March 2022, driving an EV is dramatically cheaper per mile than driving a gas-powered vehicle. Nationally, EVs are 3-5 times cheaper to drive per mile than gas-powered vehicles. In Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia, some EVs are 5–6 times cheaper to drive.
The sticker price for EVs are nearing parity with gas-powered vehicles
The lifetime cost of ownership for EVs is thousands of dollars cheaper than gas-powered vehicles, saving EV owners anywhere between $6,000 and $10,000 over the lifespan of the car, according to Consumer Reports.
EVs will become even more affordable if Congress passes clean energy tax incentives—the proposed base EV tax credit in President Biden’s clean energy plan would reduce EV sticker prices by up to $7,500. Congress should pass these clean energy provisions to deliver even greater cost savings for EVs compared to gas-powered vehicles.
https://www.zeta2030.org/news/electric-vehicles-are-delivering-marked-
cost-savings-for-drivers-and-surging-gasoline-prices-are-making-the-cost-savings-increasingly-apparent
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On March 29, wind became the second largest source of daily electricity in the US, surpassing coal and nuclear for the first time on record (but still trailing far behind natural gas).
This highlights the rise of renewable energy and the fall of coal in the US. The country’s combined wind and solar output doubled in the decade between 2008 and 2018, while coal electricity generation fell by more than half over the same period. Since March 2019, wind and solar output have nearly doubled again, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration.
Natural gas remains the dominant (and growing) energy source in the US, despite a US goal of net-zero emissions no later than 2050 (and carbon-free electricity by 2035). The US Energy Information Administration predicts renewables will still make up just 44% of the US energy mix by 2050, up from 21% in 2021. If the US net-zero targets are going to succeed, the country will need far more months like this past March.
https://qz.com/2155659/wind-surpassed-nuclear-power-output-in-the-us-f
or-the-first-time/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If the Amazon Rain Forest reaches tipping point, containing global warming will be 'blown out of the water'
The area of tropical forest burned in 2021 was enough to send more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than India does in an entire year from burning fossil fuels, according to an analysis published today.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/28/world/forest-loss-deforestation-fire-wr
i-climate-intl/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cool.
--------------------------------------------------
Me: "Remember Covid?"
Useless Idiots: "What's Covid, durr? Russia, Ukraine, Putin, NATO *drool*. DURRRR!!!!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This New Style of Climate Denial Will Make You Wish the Bad Old Days Were Back
The bizarre claim that what we need, right now, is more fossil fuels.
If you are concerned about our warming world, you should know who Alex Epstein is. The libertarian intellectual, who’s presented himself as the “next generation in energy thought,” has long hammered at a thesis that’s the next big thing in climate denial: Fossil fuels are not leading to an uninhabitable Earth but have actually improved Earth’s natural and built habitats, and contributed to “human flourishing.” Because of this, the unfettered development of oil and gas and coal is a “moral” imperative; if you oppose this “irrefutable” fact, you’re a genocidal, racist, anti-human, and anti-science fool who would rather have billions of people slip into poverty and/or die for the benefit of “nature,” which, Epstein argues, kills more humans on its own than any climate effects do. It’s a set of ideas he’s boosted for the past two decades through work with the Ayn Rand Institute, the Cato Institute, and his own “for-profit” think tank, the Center for Industrial Progress.
Epstein, a master at having it both ways, realizes that you, the average Slate reader, probably consider his mission to achieve unlimited fossil fuel production to be at odds with global concerns over human-influenced impacts on climate and nature. And trust him, he shares your concerns and would not like to be described as a “denier.” But he’s also really worried about how our “knowledge system”—big newspapers, prominent scientists, the United Nations—distorts scientific findings and exaggerates climate-related warnings and predictions, which is why he pals around with conspiracy theorists like Lauren Boebert, Dennis Prager, Scott Adams, and Candace Owens. By the way, as much as Epstein respects the Koch brothers, his ideology would never be influenced by their dark money network, even though he’s worked for decades at multiple institutions financially supported by the oil and policy magnates. Plus, he wants to debate opponents in good faith and is opposed to “ad hominem” attacks, which is why he refers to climate-concerned politicians as “fascists” and “monsters” while mobilizing his supporters to demand the termination of journalists who perform factual analyses of his oeuvre.
More at https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/alex-epstein-fossil-future-climat
e-change-argument.html
Download for free Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels from the mirrors at https://libgen.unblockit.blue/search.php?req=Alex+Epstein+Fossil
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
This New Style of Climate Denial Will Make You Wish the Bad Old Days Were Back
The bizarre claim that what we need, right now, is more fossil fuels.
Oh yeah? How much money do you make in a year, Nitish?
Fuck Slate. Fuck Nitish Pahwa.
Democrats are losing the black and Mexican vote.
Good luck winning anything when all you've got left is rich white people and some token minorities that you're paying extremely well for the bullshit propaganda you've got them spewing for you.
And just wait until all the people you know who still drive gas cars around have to pay a buck a kWh on top of the high gas prices because you just can't get enough of the smell of your own farts, retard.
Democrats are DOOMED.
--------------------------------------------------
Me: "Remember Covid?"
Useless Idiots: "What's Covid, durr? Russia, Ukraine, Putin, NATO *drool*. DURRRR!!!!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The US’s New Record in Renewables
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02062022/inside-clean-energy-renewa
bles-2022/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What a Dying Lake Says About the Future
A few days ago The Times published a report on the drying up of the Great Salt Lake, a story I’m ashamed to admit had flown under my personal radar. We’re not talking about a hypothetical event in the distant future: The lake has already lost two-thirds of its surface area, and ecological disasters — salinity rising to the point where wildlife dies off, occasional poisonous dust storms sweeping through a metropolitan area of 2.5 million people — seem imminent.
( https://web.archive.org/web/20220614101334/https://www.nytimes.com/202
2/06/07/climate/salt-lake-city-climate-disaster.html )
As an aside, I was a bit surprised that the article didn’t mention the obvious parallels with the Aral Sea, a huge lake that the Soviet Union had managed to turn into a toxic desert.
In any case, what’s happening to the Great Salt Lake is pretty bad. But what I found really scary about the report is what the lack of an effective response to the lake’s crisis says about our ability to respond to the larger, indeed existential threat of climate change.
If you aren’t terrified by the threat posed by rising levels of greenhouse gases, you aren’t paying attention — which, sadly, many people aren’t. And those who are or should be aware of that threat but stand in the way of action for the sake of short-term profits or political expediency are, in a real sense, betraying humanity.
That said, the world’s failure to take action on climate, while inexcusable, is also understandable. For as many observers have noted, global warming is a problem that almost looks custom-designed to make political action difficult. In fact, the politics of climate change are hard for at least four reasons.
First, when scientists began raising the alarm in the 1980s, climate change looked like a distant threat — a problem for future generations. Some people still see it that way; last month a senior executive at the bank HSBC gave a talk in which he declared, “Who cares if Miami is six meters underwater in 100 years?”
This view is all wrong — we’re already seeing the effects of climate change, largely in the form of a rising frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, like the megadrought in the American West that is contributing to the death of the Great Salt Lake. But that’s a statistical argument, which brings me to the second problem with climate change: It’s not yet visible to the naked eye, at least the naked eye that doesn’t want to see.
Weather, after all, fluctuates. Heat waves and droughts happened before the planet began warming; cold spells still happen even with the planet warmer on average than in the past. It doesn’t take fancy analysis to show that there is a persistent upward trend in temperatures, but many people aren’t convinced by statistical analysis of any kind, fancy or not, only by raw experience.
Then there’s the third problem: Until recently, it looked as if any major attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have significant economic costs. Serious estimates of these costs were always much lower than claimed by anti-environmentalists, and spectacular technological progress in renewable energy has made a transition to a low-emission economy look far easier than anyone could have imagined 15 years ago. Still, fears about economic losses helped block climate action.
Finally, climate change is a global problem, requiring global action — and offering a reason not to move. Anyone urging U.S. action has encountered the counterargument, “It doesn’t matter what we do, because China will just keep polluting.” There are answers to that argument — if we ever do get serious about emissions, carbon tariffs will have to be part of the mix. But it’s certainly an argument that affects the discussion.
As I said, all of these issues are explanations for inaction on climate, not excuses. But here’s the thing: None of these explanations for environmental inaction apply to the death of the Great Salt Lake. Yet the relevant policymakers still seem unwilling or unable to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fusion is coming?
Who will get there
also
Researchers discover new isotope thorium-207 and odd-even staggering in a-decay energies
https://phys.org/news/2022-05-isotope-thorium-odd-even-staggering-deca
y.html
A research team at the Institute of Modern Physics (IMP) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), together with their collaborators, has recently synthesized a new isotope
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The actual cost of preventing climate breakdown
https://www.ted.com/talks/yuval_noah_harari_the_actual_cost_of_prevent
ing_climate_breakdown/
As the climate crisis worsens, too many people are swinging from denial straight to despair. But we should not lose hope. Humanity has enormous resources under its command, and by applying them wisely, we can still prevent ecological cataclysm.
00:20
Let's talk numbers. What would it cost to prevent catastrophic climate change? Would we have to commit 50 percent of our total budget? Thirty percent? Ten percent? Naturally enough, no one knows for sure. My team and I have spent weeks poring over various reports and academic papers living in a cloud of numbers. But while the models behind the numbers are dizzyingly complex, the bottom line should cheer us up. Most experts converge on the number two percent.
00:58
If humanity increases our annual investment in clean technologies and infrastructure by around two percent of global GDP, that should be enough to prevent catastrophic climate change.
01:12
If you want to see how experts got to that number, you're welcome to visit the Sapienship website. https://www.sapienship.co/
01:20
We can, of course, argue endlessly about the exact number, tweaking the models this way and that way. But we should look at the big picture. The crucial news is that the price tag of preventing the apocalypse is in the low single digits of annual global GDP. Even the more pessimistic models generally estimate it at below five percent. And most models say it requires investing only an additional two percent of global GDP in the right places.
01:57
And note the word investing. We are not talking about burning piles of banknotes in some huge sacrifice to the spirits of the Earth. We are talking about making investments in new technologies and infrastructure, such as advanced batteries or other technologies to store solar energy and updated power grids to distribute it. These investments will create lots of new jobs and economic opportunities and are likely to be economically profitable in the long run, in part by reducing health care expenditures and saving millions of people from sickness caused by air pollution. In addition, since oil and gas often prop up autocratic and militaristic regimes, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels will be a huge boon to democracy and to peace. All this can be translated into a concrete political plan of action.
03:05
We have learned in recent years to define our goal in terms of one number: 1.5 degrees Celsius. We can define the means to do this with another number: two percent. Increased investment in clean technologies and infrastructure by two percentage points of global GDP, above 2020 levels. Of course, unlike the 1.5 Celsius figure, which is a scientifically robust threshold, the two-percent figure represents only a rough guesstimate. It should be understood as a ballpark figure that can help to frame the kind of political project humanity requires. It tells us that preventing catastrophic climate change is a totally feasible project, even though it would obviously cost a lot of money.
04:05
Since global GDP in 2020 was about 85 trillion US dollars, we are talking about a number around 1.7 trillion US dollars. But that's still just two percent. This means that to save the environment, we don't need to completely derail the economy or to abandon the achievements of modern civilization. We just need to get our priorities right.
04:36
Committing two percent of annual global GDP is far from the whole story, of course. It won't solve all our ecological problems, such as oceans brimming with plastic or the continued loss of biodiversity. And even to prevent catastrophic climate change we'll need to make sure that the funds are invested in the right places and that the new investments don't cause their own negative ecological or social fallout. We will also need to change some of our behaviors and ways of thinking from what we eat to how we travel.
05:1
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TED needs to stop talking. Get fucked, TED.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wall Street Journal asked the question: What is the Cost to Reduce Global Warming?
$131 Trillion spent between 2021 until 2050 Is One Answer.
If you look over the costs for next 30 years, and divide $131 trillion by 30 then round that number up to $5 trillion per year. Funny thing about that number because governments around the world spent $5.9 trillion subsidizing fossil fuels in 2020. Maybe governments should NOT subsidize fossil fuels, but rather subsidize reducing global warming? It would be cheaper, but then gasoline would get more expensive. More expensive is the only way, other than making gasoline engines illegal, to reduce the burning of gasoline.
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trillion-in-sub
sidies-in-2020-report-finds
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Start-up NET Power has developed technology that differs from traditional power stations. It burns natural gas with oxygen instead of air and drives a turbine with high pressure carbon dioxide instead of steam. The additional CO2 is captured for storage.
NET Power recently connected a 50MW demonstration plant to the Texas electricity grid. If its emissions were to be permanently sequestered, the plant might have a carbon footprint no bigger than a solar farm.
https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2022/06/zero-emissions-natural-ga
s-may-be-possible/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sounds interesting. I'll have to look up the technical details bc I have quite a few questions!
Originally posted by second:
Start-up NET Power has developed technology that differs from traditional power stations. It burns natural gas with oxygen instead of air and drives a turbine with high pressure carbon dioxide instead of steam. The additional CO2 is captured for storage.
NET Power recently connected a 50MW demonstration plant to the Texas electricity grid. If its emissions were to be permanently sequestered, the plant might have a carbon footprint no bigger than a solar farm.
https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2022/06/zero-emissions-natural-ga
s-may-be-possible/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Driving a turbine with high-pressure CO2 has got to be step 5 of a series of power-extraction steps. Clearly, burning natgas with O2 generates a huge amount of heat, especially since there's no N2 to dilute the heat, so there has got to be a traditional turbine as part of electrical generation. That can be made more efficient by using "waste heat"" to run either a traditional boiler-type steam turbine, or a Stirling engine.
Also, concentrating CO2 and O2 are energy-intensive steps.
CO2 can be chemically captured using one of the ethanolamines and released for re-use with heat, BUT water has to be dropped out first, bc burning natgas produces a prodigious amt of water, and running steamy exhaust thru ethanolamine will dilute it. I imagine some sort of heat-exchanger system where they use waste heart to regenerate the ethanolamine and at the same time cool the exhaust to drop water out
O2 OTOH is most efficiently captured, as far as I know,with pressure-swing absorption, which, of course, requires energy
And finally- complete capture of exhaust gases would reduce the carbon footprint of ANY generating station.
So the energetics would really have to be tuned for maximal efficiency.
I once calculated the energy savings of electric vehicles v gasoline - powered vehicles, attempting to find which has better CO2-per-mile performance.
It was actually pretty equivocal, and if coal is used to generate the electricity people driving electric cars are, in essence, driving coal-powered vehicles. But assuming electricity is generated with oil or natgas, electric vehicles are only a marginal improvement, if any (depending on turbine, grid and charging efficiency.)
Same issue with solar cells. While actual generation of electricity is clean and silent, only in the last 10 years or so have solar panels passed the "breakeven" point where they generate more energy, over their lifetime, than it took to produce them.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the greatest potential savings have to do with
farming and forestry practices which sequester carbon
reducing war (not just the fuel required to move weaponry around but the energy required for production)
improving women's standard of living and education ("demographic transition")
land use planning (reduce the requirement for autos)
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why the US is so horribly incapable of meaningful climate action?
Updated 5:26 PM ET, Mon July 18, 2022
While the world's climate is hot and getting hotter, the US government is frozen in time.
Runways are melting in the UK. Lakes are drying up in the US. Fires are raging all over.
But the federal government is stuck in amber, blocked by a Supreme Court that pines for a pre-industrial age, insisting on new laws for the Environmental Protection Agency to fight climate change, and beholden to a custom in the Senate that makes any new climate law all but impossible.
One Democratic senator -- Joe Manchin, from the coal-producing state of West Virginia and the 50th Democratic Senator -- held the power to bless or destroy some climate action this year. He chose destruction. All 50 Republican Senators joined with Manchin.
What's playing out in Europe right now is remarkably similar to what we saw last year in the Pacific Northwest -- a region that is used to cooler weather besieged by record-breaking heat. Hundreds of people died in the Northwest last summer, and we've already seen reports that more than 1,000 people died of heat-related illness in Spain and Portugal in the past several days.
Humans caused this. Scientists later found that the Northwest heat wave would have been "virtually impossible" without human-caused climate change. The same will be said for Europe's heat this week -- and specifically the all-time records in the UK. We just wouldn't be able to get these kinds of temperatures without global warming.
Don't expect anything large and meaningful from the US government.
The second part of this story has to do with the US government, which is witnessing a conservative Supreme Court wield more power to weaken the federal government.
Less power for the EPA. In June the conservatives who will control the court for decades denuded the EPA of its ability to, as CNN wrote, broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants.
It also upended years of doctrine by which the federal government assumed authority to regulate everything from climate policy to worker safety.
Congress is dysfunctional. Busting the federal bureaucracy back to the Gilded Age might sound good in a legal seminar, as in demanding more guidance from Congress.
But the problem is that the growing tribalism of US politics means Congress cannot agree to do big things. Climate change, which scientists have long argued is ultimately an existential threat, is the biggest.
More at https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/18/politics/us-climate-change-inaction-wha
t-matters/index.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
blah, blah, blah
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Every American should have a heat pump
The Post story doesn't really explain why heat pumps aren't more popular in the United States:
Estimates show that 90 percent of Japanese households use heat pumps to heat and cool homes, contributing to a 40 percent drop in the country’s electricity consumption over the past decade. In Italy, the government effectively pays citizens to use the technology; homeowners can get 110 percent of their heat pump cost reimbursed.
Scientists tout the devices as inexpensive, energy-efficient systems that significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions over traditional heating and cooling devices.
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20220721213930/https://www.washingtonpost.
com/technology/2022/07/21/europe-heat-wave-heat-pump/
The second type of heat pump is geothermal, and it's a practical option only when you're building a new house. It looks like this:
A geothermal heat pump takes advantage of the fact that once you dig down about six or seven feet, the temperature of the soil stays the same all year round, usually around 55° or so. In winter that's hot water that can be used to heat a house. In summer it's cold water that can be used to cool a house. That's super-efficient.
However, it also requires a whole bunch of piping to be installed underground, and that's a lot easier to do when a house is being built. Once the house is finished it's a lot harder to find the space to install the ground loops, though it's usually not impossible.
So this is a no-brainer. If you're building a house, it should include the piping for a geothermal heat pump. If you're replacing a central AC unit, it should be replaced with a heat pump.
More at https://jabberwocking.com/every-american-should-have-a-heat-pump/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Every American should have a heat pump
Nope.
But you go right on ahead and get yourself a heat pump.
Get a swamp cooler for the summer while you're at it.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A couple I know had an "environmentally friendly" house built with ground_sourced heating/cooling and it cost a fortune bc they had to sink a heat exchanger into the ground (all of that environmentally unfriendly copper tubing!) filled with (environmentally unfriendly) glycol ethers and more (environmentally unfriendly) tubing for underfloor heating.
AFA electric-powered heat pumps: if your locality generates it's electricity from coal, what you have is a coal-fired heat pump. IF your locality generates electricity from natgas, you have to look at the efficiency of generating electricity and transmitting it to the user v the efficiency of generating heat by burning gas directly at the user's house. IIRC the efficiency of generating and xmitting electricity from nat gas to the user is about 50%. Even if you get twice as much heat out of a heat pump as you put in, you've basically doubled an efficiency that was previously cut in half. In other words, it's a wash.
Relative costs tell me that more material and expense goes into generating heat with a heat pump than generating heat directly from burning natgas. Someone should do a calculation taking into account all of the inefficicies of heat pumps plus all of the environmental costs of building and maintaining a power grid versus the inefficicies and resource costs of maintaining a natgas distribution system.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This guy is great. He's also a HUGE supporter of heat pumps. (We don't have to agree on everything).
I trust this guy's judgement, and he goes into detail about the efficiency of heat pumps. According to him, it is far more efficient using these than our traditional gas heaters.
But they are prone to a LOT of problems that will literally leave you out in the cold when they occur at the worst possible time. That might be just fine in Texas where they almost never have to even use a furnace, but up in Indiana it could mean life or death for a lot of people.
Look into the weird programs that the UK is implementing with these things too... They'll give you huge credits for dismantling your natural gas setup and having a heat pump installed, but part of the fine print is that you CAN NOT go back to natural gas if you take advantage of this program.
Why should they have to write that legalese in there if these things are so good, and why would anyone knowingly agree to those terms?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Waaaay back when, when I was taking physics in high school and we were talking about the efficiency of refrigerators and thermodynamics, I asked whether you could heat
a house using a refrigerator in reverse. My teacher looked startled for a moment and then told me that they were called "heat pumps" and added that they generally only worked in climates that didn't get very cold in winter.
, Like the Mid-Atlantic seaboard.
I have nothing against the idea. But if you're trying to be "environmentally friendly", my point was that generating electricity is only 60% efficient at best, and out of all of the BTUs that you burned up to generate the electricity, you may be able to deliver to the customer only about 50% of that energy. So even if you get twice as much heat out of the heat pump as you put in, in terms of electricity, at best you're at the same efficiency as if you burned the gas directly in your furnace.
Thinking further... furnaces themselves aren't 100% efficient either. Some to most of the heat they generate goes up the chimney, depending on how efficient their heat exchanger is. Modern furnaces are SO efficient at extracting heat from combustion gas that they can't even be vented at the roof but out the side of the house bc the exhaust isn't hot/ bouyant enough to make it all the way up a normal chimney!
But even so, I think the best modern furnaces are only 75% efficient. So heat pumps may have an edge on energy saving.
What would be really cool tho (so to speak) would be a heat pump that is powered by nat gas. They have ACs that are powered by a small natgas flame, why not heat pumps?
Hmmm.... needs more thought!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://www.google.com/search?q=this+old+house+heat+pump
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Waaaay back when, when I was taking physics in high school and we were talking about the efficiency of refrigerators and thermodynamics, I asked whether you could heat
a house using a refrigerator in reverse. My teacher looked startled for a moment and then told me that they were called "heat pumps" and added that they generally only worked in climates that didn't get very cold in winter.
, Like the Mid-Atlantic seaboard.
Yeah... That's why I made the joke about the swamp cooler above. If you didn't know, swamp coolers have been an online scam now for about 5 years... I think the most recognizable brand name would be Arctic Cool, if memory serves. Online videos have been all over social media sites for years claiming that this $50 or $100 unit will cool off your room in minutes and out perform traditional A/C units. All it is is a fan with a membrane that wicks up water from a resevior that you need to manually fill. Unless you live in Arizona, adding humidity to the air to cool yourself is not going to work.
Quote:
I have nothing against the idea. But if you're trying to be "environmentally friendly", my point was that generating electricity is only 60% efficient at best, and out of all of the BTUs that you burned up to generate the electricity, you may be able to deliver to the customer only about 50% of that energy. So even if you get twice as much heat out of the heat pump as you put in, in terms of electricity, at best you're at the same efficiency as if you burned the gas directly in your furnace.
Thinking further... furnaces themselves aren't 100% efficient either. Some to most of the heat they generate goes up the chimney, depending on how efficient their heat exchanger is. Modern furnaces are SO efficient at extracting heat from combustion gas that they can't even be vented at the roof but out the side of the house bc the exhaust isn't hot/ bouyant enough to make it all the way up a normal chimney!
But even so, I think the best modern furnaces are only 75% efficient. So heat pumps may have an edge on energy saving.
What would be really cool tho (so to speak) would be a heat pump that is powered by nat gas. They have ACs that are powered by a small natgas flame, why not heat pumps?
Hmmm.... needs more thought!
No reason that companies shouldn't be investigating the possibilities.
They're going to have to do something about making sure that these things will actually work in cold temperatures first though if they're even going to be safe enough to rely on exclusively.
These things actually are on my list of stuff to install in my house... But only to lessen the burden on the gas furnace. I can't imagine not having a gas furnace in my house where I'm located.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Scientists say it’s ‘fatally foolish’ to not study catastrophic climate outcomes
Inside Climate News reports | August 1, 2022
As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, some climate scientists say it’s time to start paying more attention to the most extreme, worst-case outcomes, including the potential for widespread extinctions, mass climate migration and the disintegration of social and political systems.
“Facing a future of accelerating climate change while blind to worst-case scenarios is naive risk management at best and fatally foolish at worst,” an international team of researchers wrote this week in a Perspective piece in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
More than half of all cumulative carbon dioxide emissions have occurred since international climate negotiations started in 1990.
More at https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01082022/scientists-study-catastrop
hic-climate-outcomes/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If only someone had tipped us off to climate change sooner, we could've done something.
AUGUST 14, 1912.
Science Notes and News.
------•------
COAL CONSUMPTION AFFECTING CLIMATE.
The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries. (Only took one century.)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/13/fact-check-ye
s-1912-article-linked-burning-coal-climate-change/8124455002/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Posts falsely claim 95% of energy for charging electric cars comes from coal
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/30/fact-check-po
sts-makes-false-claim-gm-electric-cars/5428075001/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your coal burning car is worse for the environment than my 25 year old gas burning car.
We can't even keep up with the energy needs of the people right now. What do you think is going to happen when a bunch more of you idiots buy them?
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Your coal burning car is worse for the environment than my 25 year old gas burning car.
We can't even keep up with the energy needs of the people right now. What do you think is going to happen when a bunch more of you idiots buy them?
And it ain't just California...
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-power-use-breaks-record-heat-wa
ve-again-with-no-blackouts-2022-07-13/
That's right in your back yard.
I can't wait to hear the stories about how your coal burning car caused the blackouts that killed little Timmy's grandma next summer.
Sorry Grandma. The Democrats ruined everything in the 2020s.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did you read this part? "The emergency notice came after ERCOT began paying suppliers an average of $5,000 per megawatt hour to keep generators running. That price is the highest the grid operator pays." -- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/texas-power-use-breaks-record-heat-wa
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I can't wait to hear the stories about how your coal burning car caused the blackouts that killed little Timmy's grandma next summer.
Sorry Grandma. The Democrats ruined everything in the 2020s.
ve-again-with-no-blackouts-2022-07-13/
The price of electricity is 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. That is $100 per megawatt hour, but the generating companies are being paid $5,000 per megawatt hour and they are cheating, gouging, and raping customers, which is perfectly legal. It was, once upon a time, illegal when Democrats controlled Texas.
I forgot that 700 people died the last time the Texas power grid failed. It failed because (and this is where Republicans obfuscate the cause) Republican officials allowed Texas utilities to be run for the highest profits [remember that $5,000 per megawatt hour?] not for reliability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I already heard you whining about it with that little cunt you call a mouth.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Texas electric generating companies made the biggest profits in history at the same time they were killing the most Texans in history. It is accurately and amusingly called "making a killing". Biggest profits would have been impossible without killing those Texans. Since 6ix doesn't think it is a problem, he must know best: "I already heard you whining about it with that little cunt you call a mouth." - 6ix. Would it be unfair to note that it was Republicans making the killing, 6ix?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I already heard you whining about it with that little cunt you call a mouth.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
There are 98 million stories about "making a killing" at Texas electric generating companies made the biggest profits in history
https://www.google.com/search?q=Texas+electric+generating+companies+ma
de+the+biggest+profits+in+history
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Texas electric generating companies made the biggest profits in history at the same time they were killing the most Texans in history. It is accurately and amusingly called "making a killing". Biggest profits would have been impossible without killing those Texans. Since 6ix doesn't think it is a problem, he must know best: "I already heard you whining about it with that little cunt you call a mouth." - 6ix. Would it be unfair to note that it was Republicans making the killing, 6ix?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I already heard you whining about it with that little cunt you call a mouth.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
There are 98 million stories about "making a killing" at Texas electric generating companies made the biggest profits in history
https://www.google.com/search?q=Texas+electric+generating+companies+ma
de+the+biggest+profits+in+history
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
You keep saying it was Republicans making a killing.
Okay. I want an actual financial breakdown of every single person who made a dime off of the event you haven't stopped talking about for years now, and exactly how much money they made.
Let's get to the bottom of this.
My guess, which is rarely wrong, is that there was plenty of money made on this by both rich Republicans and rich Democrats. The split is almost certainly no wider than 60/40 either way.
In any event, don't try to make this about me not calling out Republicans. I have an extremely long post history here where I've constantly called out Republicans for their bullshit. Hell... I've even called out Trump (who is not a Republican) from time to time.
I'VE NEVER ONCE SEEN YOU CALL OUT BIDEN FOR ANYTHING. I'VE NEVER ONCE SEEN YOU CALL OUT THE BAD BEHAVIOR OF ANYBODY IN YOUR PARTY.
You're the one that goes around here with a big ole' tattoo of a Donkey on your forehead. I don't even have a hidden tattoo of an Elephant on my body.
Get fucked, retard.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, you are crazy. This is why Republicans do not support taking action against climate change. They want proof that their actions will make a noteworthy change in climate. And they also want their "action" (which they don't wish to take any) to cost nothing. This is completely crazy, but that is what Republicans are. Oh, I forgot you are not a Republican, you say.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You keep saying it was Republicans making a killing.
Okay. I want an actual financial breakdown of every single person who made a dime off of the event you haven't stopped talking about for years now, and exactly how much money they made.
Let's get to the bottom of this.
My guess, which is rarely wrong, is that there was plenty of money made on this by both rich Republicans and rich Democrats. The split is almost certainly no wider than 60/40 either way.
In any event, don't try to make this about me not calling out Republicans. I have an extremely long post history here where I've constantly called out Republicans for their bullshit. Hell... I've even called out Trump (who is not a Republican) from time to time.
I'VE NEVER ONCE SEEN YOU CALL OUT BIDEN FOR ANYTHING. I'VE NEVER ONCE SEEN YOU CALL OUT THE BAD BEHAVIOR OF ANYBODY IN YOUR PARTY.
You're the one that goes around here with a big ole' tattoo of a Donkey on your forehead. I don't even have a hidden tattoo of an Elephant on my body.
Get fucked, retard.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, you are crazy. This is why Republicans do not support taking action against climate change. They want proof that their actions will make a noteworthy change in climate. And they also want their "action" (which they don't wish to take any) to cost nothing. This is completely crazy, but that is what Republicans are. Oh, I forgot you are not a Republican, you say.
Originally posted by second:Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
You keep saying it was Republicans making a killing.
Okay. I want an actual financial breakdown of every single person who made a dime off of the event you haven't stopped talking about for years now, and exactly how much money they made.
Let's get to the bottom of this.
My guess, which is rarely wrong, is that there was plenty of money made on this by both rich Republicans and rich Democrats. The split is almost certainly no wider than 60/40 either way.
In any event, don't try to make this about me not calling out Republicans. I have an extremely long post history here where I've constantly called out Republicans for their bullshit. Hell... I've even called out Trump (who is not a Republican) from time to time.
I'VE NEVER ONCE SEEN YOU CALL OUT BIDEN FOR ANYTHING. I'VE NEVER ONCE SEEN YOU CALL OUT THE BAD BEHAVIOR OF ANYBODY IN YOUR PARTY.
You're the one that goes around here with a big ole' tattoo of a Donkey on your forehead. I don't even have a hidden tattoo of an Elephant on my body.
Get fucked, retard.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
That's not a valid reply.
Show me the actual financial data. An article from a Lefty "news" site is fine, as long as it provides actual, factual, verifiable citations.
Otherwise, I don't want to hear you ever talk about this incident in Texas again.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've had thousands of hours talking to Trumptards and they have very strange ideas about truth and validity and facts. Their ideas on those get them into endless trouble. For example, there is not yet enough facts/proofs/truths to justify that they stop smoking and there never will be.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
That's not a valid reply.
Show me the actual financial data. An article from a Lefty "news" site is fine, as long as it provides actual, factual, verifiable citations.
Otherwise, I don't want to hear you ever talk about this incident in Texas again.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
6ix, every Trumptard I know has numerous "difficulties" and "problems" much like smoking, things they want to do and won't stop until there is sufficient "proof" they must change. But those are not their fault because they are certain that all blame is properly placed on Democrats. If I point out something that went wrong that they have complete control over, they demand proof it's their fault, not the Democrats' fault. Got divorced or girlfriend walked out? It's the Democrats' fault for women's lib. Weather too hot? Democrats' fault for blaming a natural phenomenon on mankind. Don't Democrats know it still snows in winter? Phooey on global warming. It is a Democrat myth. Texas electric grid failed during a winter freeze? It is the Democrats' fault for wind power. Ice cap melting in the Arctic? Glaciers melting in Antarctic? Fake news from Democrats and the scientists who are Democrats. Warning labels on cigarettes? That's Democrats being overly alarmist about an almost harmless habit.
Every Trumptard's "difficulties" and "problems" cannot be solved because those are completely controlled by Democrats and Bankers who are Democrats and wealthy Democrats such as Jeff Bezos and Jewish Democrats such as George Soros. Trumptards can do nothing about anything until the Democratic Party is dead. Once it is dead, only then can Republicans begin to think about climate change, but the solution must not mean burning less gasoline or buying more electric cars or expanding the electric grid or etc. etc. because all are Democrats' ideas.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:I've had thousands of hours talking to Trumptards and they have very strange ideas about truth and validity and facts. Their ideas on those get them into endless trouble. For example, there is not yet enough facts/proofs/truths to justify that they stop smoking and there never will be.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
That's not a valid reply.
Show me the actual financial data. An article from a Lefty "news" site is fine, as long as it provides actual, factual, verifiable citations.
Otherwise, I don't want to hear you ever talk about this incident in Texas again.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
6ix, every Trumptard I know has numerous "difficulties" and "problems" much like smoking, things they want to do and won't stop until there is sufficient "proof" they must change. But those are not their fault because they are certain that all blame is properly placed on Democrats. If I point out something that went wrong that they have complete control over, they demand proof it's their fault, not the Democrats' fault. Got divorced or girlfriend walked out? It's the Democrats' fault for women's lib. Weather too hot? Democrats' fault for blaming a natural phenomenon on mankind. Don't Democrats know it still snows in winter? Phooey on global warming. It is a Democrat myth. Texas electric grid failed during a winter freeze? It is the Democrats' fault for wind power. Ice cap melting in the Arctic? Glaciers melting in Antarctic? Fake news from Democrats and the scientists who are Democrats. Warning labels on cigarettes? That's Democrats being overly alarmist about an almost harmless habit.
Every Trumptard's "difficulties" and "problems" cannot be solved because those are completely controlled by Democrats and Bankers who are Democrats and wealthy Democrats such as Jeff Bezos and Jewish Democrats such as George Soros. Trumptards can do nothing about anything until the Democratic Party is dead. Once it is dead, only then can Republicans begin to think about climate change, but the solution must not mean burning less gasoline or buying more electric cars or expanding the electric grid or etc. etc. because all are Democrats' ideas.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Nope. Don't see any numbers or links there.
Just a bunch of dumb bullshit and failing to justify why your coal burning car will be the future.
SPOILER ALERT: Coal burning cars will not be the future.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
SECOND: I've had thousands of hours talking to Trumptards and they have very strange ideas about truth and validity and facts.
Pffffwaaah!!!
You owe me a new keyboard!!!!
Quote:
...Every [liar] I know has numerous "difficulties" and "problems" much like [lying], things they want to do and won't stop
You get the "unintentionally funny" award!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To the trained eye, it would certainly seem that Second has devolved into little more than a parody of himself at this point.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, misunderstanding makes it difficult for you to rise higher in the middle class but very easy to fall. Meanwhile:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You get the "unintentionally funny" award!
As oil and gas industry's profits soar, corporations can afford to fight climate change
The oil and gas industry is making record profits thanks to high energy prices, but they also are pumping out more greenhouse gases than ever before.
If Exxon Mobil, Chevron and other oil companies have tens of billions to buy back stock and reward investors, they have a billion to spend on controlling emissions. No longer can they claim that tighter regulations will bankrupt them.
Houston-based Exxon reported a record $17.9 billion profit for the quarter ended June 30th, more than triple the $4.7 billion Exxon made last year in the same period. Chevron reported a record $11.6 billion in profit in the second quarter and a nearly 83 percent rise in revenues.
San Antonio-based Valero Energy said margins on refining surged to an unprecedented $30 per barrel, roughly four times year-ago levels. Houston-based refining giant Phillips 66 reported net income of $3.2 billion and a 77 percent increase in revenues.
The top 28 publicly traded independent oil producers generated $25.5 billion in free cash flow in the second quarter, Bloomberg news reported.
The energy crisis induced by Russian President Vladimir Putins war on Ukraine has been very, very good for oil and gas.
Profits are high because fossil fuel corporations do not pay for the damage their products cause the planet. They don’t pay carbon dioxide or methane taxes, and the U.S. is not effectively limiting emissions. Our grandchildren will pay for the warmer climate instead.
Natural gas producers could reduce emissions by 82 percent, if they chose, the consulting firm Accenture determined in a new report. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-net-zero-industry-tracker/digest But despite their promises, the oil and gas industry is increasing them, especially in Texas.
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20220803120637/https://www.houstonchronicl
e.com/home/article/Tomlinson-As-oil-and-gas-industry-s-profits-17346193.php
I shared this article by email with some Trumptards in the industry this morning. Their reactions summarized in the fewest possible words: "Nope." "Not gonna." "Impossible." "Those Democrats." "Why bother?"
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dumb. You are so dumb.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, I understand you quite well. I also know that our economic system.... which is not capitalism, BTW.
SignyM:
You get the "unintentionally funny" award!
SECOND: Signym, misunderstanding makes it difficult for you ...
Meanwhile...
Quote:
SECOND: As oil and gas industry's profits soar, corporations can afford to fight climate change
Do you think you're talking to a climate change denier? If you do, then YOU misunderstand. It's just that I think the "fixes" for the problem, just like the "fixes" for Covid, are being driven by a different agenda.
For example, the whole drive to ban nitrogen-baded fertilizer.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:People have told me they are much smarter than I am. They make fatal decisions and go bankrupt or die from a preventable illness/accident or any of a thousand different missteps that could have been avoided if they actually were smart. These self-described smart people will keep burning fossil fuel because of habit (since fire is Man's oldest and most familiar technology) which will be the ultimate fatal decision.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Dumb. You are so dumb.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
People have told me they are much smarter than I am.
A lot of people. Lots and lots of people.
Pretty much everybody but Ted.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They are.
SECOND: People have told me they are much smarter than I am.
You're not smart, SECOND. What you are is sociopathically selfish. Your virtue is limited to SIGNALLING bc you're a nasty man who not only never does anything good, you take pleasure in harassing and hurting people IRL.
No wonder you have to lie to yourself 24/7/365.
BTW lying to yourself is stupid.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, now for the virtue-signalling ban on nitrogen -based fertilizer.
At issue is nitrous oxide (N2O) gas, which is emitted by bacteria in the soil and water.
60% comes from NATURAL sources. Of that, 60 pct comes from soils under natural vegetation and most of the remainder from the ocean. No
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/nitrous-oxide-emissions
A significant amount comes from either deliberately set* or accidental forest fires. (* burning forests to clear the land for farming or ranching as happens in Brazil, or for palm oil plantations in Indonesia, Malaysia, and SE Asia.
Quote:
Over the last decade, it seems that the regional distribution of biomass burning has increased worldwide, as well as the length of burning time. The result is a continuing increase in the release of emission products, and an increase in the severity of their impact on climate and on the environment. Scientists estimate that in just a few months the burning that took place in 1997 in Indonesia released as many greenhouse gases as all the cars and power plants in Europe emit in an entire year...
Nitrous oxide (N2O) concentrations have been increasing at about 0.3 percent per year for the last several decades. Yet, nitrous oxide has a lifetime of 150 years in the atmosphere, which contrasts sharply with the 10-year lifetime of methane. A single nitrous oxide molecule is the equivalent of 206 carbon dioxide molecules in terms of its greenhouse gas effect. Biomass burning accounts for about 2-3 percent of the total amount of tropospheric nitrous oxide.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalFire/fire_3.php
Fertilizing with too much ammonia doesn't do anyone any good. It creates both an air and water quality problem. But nitrate fertilizers are ok AFA global climate change is concerned.
Now, about some solutions:
Better forest management. Not "burn it down". Not "snuff out all fires" and not "let it burn". 'Nuff said.
Reforestation.
Quote:
Further, we show that applications of biochar during reforestation can partially compensate for project emissions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-99395-6
Regenerative farming.
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2022-2-summer/feature/dirt-first-car
bon-farming-regenerative-agriculture
Capping big methane leaks
https://news.stanford.edu/2022/03/24/methane-leaks-much-worse-estimate
s-fix-available/
Dialing our warmongering waaaay back
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/10/pentagon-us-military-e
missions-climate-crisis
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nearly two dozen Republican state treasurers around the country are working to thwart climate action on state and federal levels, using the tax dollars they control to punish companies that want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Over the past year, treasurers in nearly half the United States have been coordinating tactics and talking points, meeting in private and cheering each other in public as part of a well-funded campaign to protect the fossil fuel companies.
The treasurers of Louisiana and Arkansas have pulled more than $700 million out of BlackRock, the world’s largest investment manager, over objections that the firm is too focused on environmental issues. At the same time, the treasurers of Utah and Idaho are pressuring the private sector to drop climate action and other causes they label as “woke.”
And treasurers from Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma joined a larger campaign to thwart the nominations of federal regulators who wanted to require that banks, funds and companies disclose the financial risks posed by a warming planet.
At the nexus of these efforts is the State Financial Officers Foundation, a little-known nonprofit organization based in Shawnee, Kansas.
The Republican treasurers skirt the fact that global warming is an economic menace that is damaging industries like agriculture and causing extreme weather that devastates communities and costs taxpayers billions in recovery and rebuilding. Instead, they frame efforts to reduce emissions as a threat to employment and revenue, and have turned climate science into another front in the culture wars.
In November, as major banks and corporations at a global summit in Glasgow were promising to take climate action, the Republican state treasurers were huddling at a State Financial Officers Foundation conference in Orlando, Fla., talking about ways to stop them.
At the meeting, the group’s chief executive, Derek Kreifels, made a presentation about a new law that had been signed by Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican. It prohibited state agencies from investing in businesses that have cut ties with fossil fuel companies.
Riley Moore, the West Virginia treasurer, went on to offer a classic denial of the overwhelming scientific consensus that the continued burning of oil, gas and coal will lead to planetary catastrophe.
“The climate has been changing in the world since Earth was created,” Mr. Moore said. “Whether these greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to the warming of the globe, I’m not sure I necessarily agree with that.”
More at https://web.archive.org/web/20220806005401/https://www.nytimes.com/202
2/08/05/climate/republican-treasurers-climate-change.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nobody cares.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s hot outside. It’s been hot outside pretty much everywhere this summer. On five continents. In China, which is less than halfway through a predicted 40 days of extreme heat. In the United Kingdom, which recently set its new all-time heat record. In Seville, which for the first time named a heat wave. (Hi, Zoe.) And in the United States.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nobody cares.
Daily temperature records are being broken year-round. It’s another heat wave, another extreme heat wave, but it’s kind of boring. If these things become so common, they’re just not that interesting.
The heat has become so regular that it no longer interests us and yet the fact of its regularity is exactly why it should.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm 42 years old. I'm not some dumb shit late Millennial or GenZ'er.
We've had hotter summers. All the way back in the 80's too.
Get fucked.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:https://eand.co/the-age-of-stupid-or-why-it-feels-like-the-world-is-en
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm 42 years old. I'm not some dumb shit . . .
ding-a-little-more-every-day-b3809ba521fd
https://miro.medium.com/max/840/1*DWfW-NrN2Tp2RWMObuYdtA.jpeg
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:https://eand.co/the-age-of-stupid-or-why-it-feels-like-the-world-is-en
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm 42 years old. I'm not some dumb shit . . .
ding-a-little-more-every-day-b3809ba521fd
https://miro.medium.com/max/840/1*DWfW-NrN2Tp2RWMObuYdtA.jpeg
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
The poorly programmed SecondBot will deny crime all around us brought on by Democrat politicians and Democrat policy, but will complain that his summer is too hot.
Must be really nice living inside the basement of your parents house in that white gated community that only lets minorities in when they need the underpaid Mexican crews to do their yard work, or the underpaid black maids to raise their unwanted children and unwanted elderly parents. Do you make sure to berate your parents about using so much A/C to cool that 4,000 sq ft. home, or do you just pretend that it bothers you while enjoying the cool and dry basement?
Get fucked.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Carbon-reduction plans rely on technology that doesn’t exist
Instead of scaling up renewable energy, researchers promote unproved ideas on carbon capture and sequestration
Naomi Oreskes on August 1, 2022 writes at
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-reduction-plans-rely
-on-tech-that-doesnt-exist/
At last year’s Glasgow COP26 meetings on the climate crisis, U.S. envoy and former U.S. secretary of state John Kerry stated that solutions to the climate crisis will involve “technologies that we don’t yet have” but are supposedly on the way. Kerry’s optimism comes directly from scientists. You can read about these beliefs in the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Integrated Assessment Models, created by researchers. These models present pathways to carbon reductions that may permit us to keep climate change below two degrees Celsius. They rely heavily on technologies that don’t yet exist, such as ways to store carbon in the ground safely, permanently and affordably.
Stop and think about this for a moment. Science—that is to say, Euro-American science—has long been held as our model for rationality. Scientists frequently accuse those who reject their findings of being irrational. Yet depending on technologies that do not yet exist is irrational, a kind of magical thinking. That is a developmental stage kids are expected to outgrow. Imagine if I said I planned to build a home with materials that had not yet been invented or build a civilization on Mars without first figuring out how to get even one human being there. You’d likely consider me irrational, perhaps delusional. Yet this kind of thinking pervades plans for future decarbonization.
The IPCC models, for instance, depend heavily on carbon capture and storage, also called carbon capture and sequestration (either way, CCS). Some advocates, including companies such as ExxonMobil, say CCS is a proven, mature technology because for years industry has pumped carbon dioxide or other substances into oil fields to flush more fossil fuel out of the ground. But carbon dioxide doesn’t necessarily stay in the rocks and soil. It may migrate along cracks, faults and fissures before finding its way back to the atmosphere. Keeping pumped carbon in the ground—in other words, achieving net negative emissions—is much harder. Globally there are only handful of places where this is done. None of them is commercially viable.
One site is the Orca plant in Iceland, touted as the world's biggest carbon-removal plant. Air-captured carbon dioxide is mixed with water and pumped into the ground, where it reacts with the basaltic rock to form stable carbonate minerals. That's great. But the cost is astronomical—$600 to $1,000 per ton—and the scale is tiny: about 4,000 tons a year. By comparison, just one company, tech giant Microsoft (which has pledged to offset all its emissions), produced nearly 14 million tons of carbon in 2021. Or look at carbon capture at the Archer Daniels Midland ethanol plant in Illinois, which, since 2017, has been containing carbon at a cost to the American taxpayer of $281 million (more than half the total project cost); at the same time, overall emissions from the plant have increased. And the total number of people employed in the project? Eleven. Meanwhile numerous CCS plants have failed. In 2016 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology closed its Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies program because the 43 projects it was involved with had all been canceled, put on hold or converted to other things.
It's obvious why ExxonMobil and Archer Daniels Midland are pushing CCS. It makes them look good, and they can get the taxpayer to foot the bill. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, passed last year, contained more than $10 billion for efforts to develop carbon-capture technologies. In contrast, the act contained merely $420 million for renewable energy—water, wind, geothermal and solar.
Scaling up solar and wind is going to cost money and will need to be s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Which is why carbon sequestration in the soil in the form of cover crops or biochar is a better option. If we could combine biochar with better forest management to reduce catastrophic wildfires (pyrolyzing smaller trees and shrubs along the way and laying down mile-wide firebreaks through dense forests) that would be even better. Reforestation with biochar also works. Paying farmers to increase the carbon content of their soils (carbon can be easily measured in dirt, there are some nifty ways to do it). Planting trees in cities to reduce temperatures and, oh btw, reduce AC costs. Better land-use planning to reduce miles driven. I think we could still try "land-ferries" - reduce the number of miles driven by loading cars on trains for lober-distance travel, which eliminates the problem of the "last mile".
Improving electricty transmission efficiencies.
I recall reading a paper of some researcher trying to understand how photosynthesis worked so he could reproduce it, and all I culd think of is ... "why?"
We don't need new technology, just the will to apply old, proven technology.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE someone poor - William Blake
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It’s hot outside. It’s been hot outside pretty much everywhere this summer. On five continents. In China, which is less than halfway through a predicted 40 days of extreme heat. In the United Kingdom, which recently set its new all-time heat record. In Seville, which for the first time named a heat wave. (Hi, Zoe.) And in the United States.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Nobody cares.
Daily temperature records are being broken year-round. It’s another heat wave, another extreme heat wave, but it’s kind of boring. If these things become so common, they’re just not that interesting.
The heat has become so regular that it no longer interests us and yet the fact of its regularity is exactly why it should.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
UK temperatures have been crazy - highest ever recorded and there are bushfires in Europe.
UK has just declared itself in drought
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/12/drought-declared-e
ngland-hosepipe-ban-water-restrictions
Waiting for people to complain about taking away their freedoms - seems to be a thing now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
After 25 Years of Futility, Democrats Finally Jettison Carbon Pricing in Favor of Incentives to Counter Climate Change
The $370 billion Inflation Reduction Act is the nation’s first comprehensive climate plan to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy and green technology. It relies on tax credits and other “carrots,” not sticks.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/12082022/after-25-years-of-futility
-democrats-finally-jettison-carbon-pricing-in-favor-of-incentives-to-counter-climate-change/
The nation’s first comprehensive climate law, expected to be sealed with a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday, will not look anything like the program imagined by either climate economists or those in Washington and the environmental movement who had faith in bipartisan action.
From the time that the world first agreed to act on climate change 30 years ago at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, environmentalists talked about putting a “price” on carbon as a core element of any strategy for reducing the fossil fuel pollution that was heating the planet.
Whether imposed by tax, fee or cap-and-trade system—such a price would discourage carbon-based fuel pollution and encourage investment in and deployment of clean alternatives, said advocates of the idea. And because such a scheme would rely on the market, rather than government mandates, to decide the best approach to decarbonize, proponents argued it was an idea both Democrats and Republicans could get behind.
Instead, Democrats are advancing their climate bill with no Republican support, and their program is one of carrots, not sticks. The idea is that an unprecedented $370 billion federal investment in clean energy — largely in the form of tax credits to encourage its development, as opposed to taxes on carbon to discourage use of fossil fuels — will be the push that transforms not only the economy but the politics of climate change.
“I’ve always thought that this gives us a chance to get the greatest possible emission reductions and the largest savings possible and still get the votes,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee who shepherded through the tax credits at the heart of the Democrats’ climate plan.
The decision that the United States would spend rather than tax its way to a more sustainable future was in large part driven by political reality — Democrats had to win over the vote of a staunch fossil fuel industry supporter in their own party, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who opposed carbon taxes. But the plan also was influenced by a new generation of climate policy thinkers who argued that lawmakers had spent too much time listening to the economists, and as a result, had played into the hands of the powerful foes of climate action.
Previous climate proposals in Washington focused first on costs, not benefits. That made it easy for the fossil fuel industry and its allies to defeat the Clinton administration’s BTU tax proposal and the cap-and-trade plan that died in Congress under President Barack Obama, whereby carbon emissions would have been capped and polluting industries could have purchased credits from non-polluters.
In contrast, President Joe Biden is about to put his signature on a climate plan that is entirely focused on benefits—not just cleaner energy, but prevailing wage jobs, relief for disadvantaged neighborhoods overburdened with pollution, and revival of communities left behind by coal.
“You don’t go to these communities with some sort of vague promises that you’re interested in them,” said Wyden. “You show them with concrete actions relating to wages and opportunities, that here’s some of the tools that can help them get through the transition.”
Matto Mildenberger, political scientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, whose anti-carbon tax writings have been influential among many of those working on the legislation, called the Inflation Reduction Act “serious, transformative industrial policy.”
“It’s about genera
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
After 25 Years of Futility, Democrats Finally Jettison Carbon Pricing in Favor of Incentives to Counter Climate Change
The $370 billion Inflation Reduction Act is the nation’s first comprehensive climate plan to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy and green technology. It relies on tax credits and other “carrots,” not sticks.
"Carrots" for the rich, subsidized by the poor and lower middle-class.
Now all the Blacks and Mexicans that used to vote Democrat will feel the same taxation pain that single people when paying through the teeth for other people's kids.
Only it's rich white people who they're subsidizing to drive around coal burning cars and put solar panels on their roofs.
Get fucked.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, I checked to see if you are correct. You are not. See Table 3. Conventional Distributional Effects of Major Revenue-Raising Tax Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, 2023
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
After 25 Years of Futility, Democrats Finally Jettison Carbon Pricing in Favor of Incentives to Counter Climate Change
The $370 billion Inflation Reduction Act is the nation’s first comprehensive climate plan to curtail greenhouse gas emissions and boost renewable energy and green technology. It relies on tax credits and other “carrots,” not sticks.
"Carrots" for the rich, subsidized by the poor and lower middle-class.
Now all the Blacks and Mexicans that used to vote Democrat will feel the same taxation pain that single people when paying through the teeth for other people's kids.
Only it's rich white people who they're subsidizing to drive around coal burning cars and put solar panels on their roofs.
Get fucked.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
It will cost people in the bottom quintile $5.00 more taxes per year. Well, actually the 12.2% of that group who are cheaters will be paying more taxes. The people who don't cheat won't be paying more.
August 12, 2022, Senate-Passed Inflation Reduction Act: Estimates of Budgetary and Macroeconomic Effects
https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/8/12/senate-passed-i
nflation-reduction-act
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Inflation Reduction Act Adds First-time Charge for Methane Emissions for the Oil and Gas Sector
It imposes a fee of $900 per metric ton of methane emissions starting in 2024, rising to $1,500 by 2026.
https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/inflation
-reduction-act-adds-first-time-charge-for-methane-emissions-for-the-oil-and-gas-sector/
Firms will also receive tax credits worth $85 per tonne for carbon capture and storage.
https://www.verdantix.com/insights/blogs/the-inflation-reduction-act-p
aves-new-ground-for-us-climate-change-action
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Inflation Reduction Act Adds First-time Charge for Methane Emissions for the Oil and Gas Sector
It imposes a fee of $900 per metric ton of methane emissions starting in 2024, rising to $1,500 by 2026.
https://www.omm.com/resources/alerts-and-publications/alerts/inflation
-reduction-act-adds-first-time-charge-for-methane-emissions-for-the-oil-and-gas-sector/
Firms will also receive tax credits worth $85 per tonne for carbon capture and storage.
https://www.verdantix.com/insights/blogs/the-inflation-reduction-act-p
aves-new-ground-for-us-climate-change-action
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
The IRS Booster Act does not give a tax credit for a single coal burning car that is made in the world right now because of the requirement that 50% of the materials for the battery need to be from North America, and none of them are.
Ford also raised it's price of the F-150 coal burning truck $7,500 just in time to get your subsidy, paid for by the poor and lower middle class.
--------------------------------------------------
Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is Coal-Powered Energy Charging These Electric Cars? No. It is a falsehood from Trumptards: “Coal powered electric cars…. helping liberals pretend they are solving a make-believe crisis.”
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
single coal burning car . . . F-150 coal burning truck . . .
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coal-powered-electric-cars/
https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.9ZD7BV
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME