Following the science means slashing emissions 7% per year – starting now
Published on 13/08/2021, 11:18am
By Gonzalo Muñoz and Nigel Topping
It’s a refrain we hear year after year: This is a make-or-break moment, last-best-chance to stem the looming climate crisis. Yet, while climate action today is stronger than ever, we are still far off course from the healthy, resilient zero-emissions future within our grasp.
To get on track, we need businesses, investors, cities and regions to take climate science for what it is – an existential warning – and start cutting emissions and building resilience in 2021.
That looming climate crisis has caught up with us. From wildfires in Greece, Siberia, Turkey and North America, to floods in Europe, Turkey and China, to Olympic athletes breaking down in the Japanese heat – it is hitting our health and economic security.
New science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change traces the fingerprints of human activity across climate changes, showing that every degree of warming makes life more dangerous, whereas every bit of action makes it more liveable.
That makes the UN’s Cop26 climate summit in Glasgow this November our last shot at getting it right.
National governments cannot do it alone. Businesses, investors, cities and regions can show governments that they are willing and able to follow the science. In so doing, they will carry their sectors, value chains, customers and citizens along in the race and drive greater national ambition.
IPCC report a ‘call to arms’ for climate science in courts, legal experts say
Long-term commitments to net zero emissions won’t cut it. The science demands that we reduce global emissions by 7.6% per year – or 50% within the 2020s – while reversing biodiversity loss. But while we can point to scores of laudable commitments for net zero in or before the 2040s, examples of those already cutting annual emissions by 7.6% are scarce.
The work starts now, with wealthy countries and the private sector showing solidarity for those most at risk from Covid-19 and the climate crisis.
It goes through the G7’s Build Back a Better World initiative, which will mobilise private capital in developing countries towards climate action, health, digital technology and gender equity and equality; through the UN General Assembly, which should strengthen the drive for universal Covid-19 vaccinations; and the Food Systems Summit, which will give rise to public-private initiatives to transform the food sector, a major emitter and source of jobs and livelihoods.
It also requires G20 leaders to reaffirm their commitment to zero emissions by 2050 and how to do it: stop building coal projects, earmark stimulus spending for climate action and shore up the developed world’s promised $100 billion per year in climate finance.
IPCC report prompts calls to tackle methane emissions at Cop26
Getting these moments right will turn Glasgow into a pivot point, where we choose to look outward rather than inward, to show solidarity rather than selfishness.
This is when we create a Marshall Plan for climate action, not a Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles ended World War I by apportioning blame and the burden of reparation to Germany – crippling the German economy and leading to World War II.
The Marshall Plan ended World War II by generating public and private investment towards European reconstruction.
A Marshall Plan for climate action puts businesses, investors, cities and regions at its core – driving ambition from the bottom up to national governments. It embeds the IPCC’s science across every corner of the economy, directing public and private investment from fossil fuels and deforestation to clean energy, electric and active transport and nature-positive business.
This push has started, as demonstrated by the growth of the UN’s Race to Zero and Race to Resilience campaigns of private sector and local government actors committing to net zero by 2050 and greater resilience by 2030. But the science shows that every bit of action today will limit another fraction of a degree warming – so we need to keep racing.
Gonzalo Muñoz and Nigel Topping are the High-Level Champions for Climate Action for the UN’s Cop25 and Cop26 climate summits.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/ ... rting-now/
Solving Climate Change.
Re: Solving Climate Change.
Clearly, this is not the usual anti-capitalist climate change drawl, and yet the assumptions that we need to 'cut, reduce, slash' are carried over from a left wing dominated narrative on the environment. Since the 1960's the left have filtered all their facts through the lens of anti-capitalist politics, while the right have engaged in climate change denial - so that's where the discussion now takes place, between left wing activism and right wing denial. Consequently, the possibility of applying the technology to develop limitless clean energy from magma, and sustain capitalist growth, never comes into focus. The right won't admit there's a problem, and the left have no interest in solutions.
"To get on track, we need businesses, investors, cities and regions to take climate science for what it is – an existential warning – and start cutting emissions and building resilience in 2021."
In my view, a better solution occurs on the international level - via an agreement to develop magma energy as a global good; intended initially to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels to an admixture of clean electricity and hydrogen fuel.
There are many advantages to such an approach; not least that politically - it should be easier to deliver upon even an admittedly large infrastructure project than promises to reduce carbon emissions, in face of a domestic political obligation to grow the economy. Spending vast amounts of tax payers money, entrenching the wrong energy infrastructure on the basis of an assumption that limits to growth is insurmountable; and so we must cut, slash, and reduce - would be a fatal mistake.
"A Marshall Plan for climate action puts businesses, investors, cities and regions at its core – driving ambition from the bottom up to national governments. It embeds the IPCC’s science across every corner of the economy, directing public and private investment from fossil fuels and deforestation to clean energy, electric and active transport and nature-positive business."
The magma energy approach is both less and more ambitious. Less ambitious because it requires less imposition upon individuals, business and investors to achieve, and more ambitious because limitless clean energy is fundamentally necessary to a prosperous sustainable future. The left wing narrative is mistaken. Limits to growth can be transcended given sufficient clean energy - and energy revolutions, from meat eating to fossil fuels, have always preceded leaps forward for our species. Have less, pay more, stop this, tax that - forever after, is not a good idea. Rather we must explore the economic opportunity in transcending limits to growth through the application of technology - in much the same way we transcended Malthus dismal prophecy with trains, tractors and fertilisers.
The energy is there, on a truly massive scale, and the basic technologies exist to extract it. International agreement to harness that energy to secure the future of our planet would be hugely hopeful in my view. While it's outside the established narratives, paradoxically, what makes it seem improbable is what makes it the right answer. Or at least, the right answer must necessarily be improbable - as the most probable course leads to climate catastrophe.
"But the science shows that every bit of action today will limit another fraction of a degree warming – so we need to keep racing."
Surely developing magma energy is a more palatable improbability than a billion, unquantifiably effective, scattershot, pain in the ass impositions on everyone and/or thing in the hope they add up to sustainability somehow!
"To get on track, we need businesses, investors, cities and regions to take climate science for what it is – an existential warning – and start cutting emissions and building resilience in 2021."
In my view, a better solution occurs on the international level - via an agreement to develop magma energy as a global good; intended initially to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels to an admixture of clean electricity and hydrogen fuel.
There are many advantages to such an approach; not least that politically - it should be easier to deliver upon even an admittedly large infrastructure project than promises to reduce carbon emissions, in face of a domestic political obligation to grow the economy. Spending vast amounts of tax payers money, entrenching the wrong energy infrastructure on the basis of an assumption that limits to growth is insurmountable; and so we must cut, slash, and reduce - would be a fatal mistake.
"A Marshall Plan for climate action puts businesses, investors, cities and regions at its core – driving ambition from the bottom up to national governments. It embeds the IPCC’s science across every corner of the economy, directing public and private investment from fossil fuels and deforestation to clean energy, electric and active transport and nature-positive business."
The magma energy approach is both less and more ambitious. Less ambitious because it requires less imposition upon individuals, business and investors to achieve, and more ambitious because limitless clean energy is fundamentally necessary to a prosperous sustainable future. The left wing narrative is mistaken. Limits to growth can be transcended given sufficient clean energy - and energy revolutions, from meat eating to fossil fuels, have always preceded leaps forward for our species. Have less, pay more, stop this, tax that - forever after, is not a good idea. Rather we must explore the economic opportunity in transcending limits to growth through the application of technology - in much the same way we transcended Malthus dismal prophecy with trains, tractors and fertilisers.
The energy is there, on a truly massive scale, and the basic technologies exist to extract it. International agreement to harness that energy to secure the future of our planet would be hugely hopeful in my view. While it's outside the established narratives, paradoxically, what makes it seem improbable is what makes it the right answer. Or at least, the right answer must necessarily be improbable - as the most probable course leads to climate catastrophe.
"But the science shows that every bit of action today will limit another fraction of a degree warming – so we need to keep racing."
Surely developing magma energy is a more palatable improbability than a billion, unquantifiably effective, scattershot, pain in the ass impositions on everyone and/or thing in the hope they add up to sustainability somehow!
Re: Solving Climate Change.
The Observer view on the pros and cons of deep-sea mining
Observer editorial 11 hrs ago
Deep-sea mining has become one of our planet’s most divisive problems. By stripping the ocean floor of its vast mineral wealth, proponents say we can obtain the cobalt, manganese, nickel and copper we urgently need for the green technologies – the electric vehicles, batteries and wind turbines – that must replace our carbon-emitting cars, power plants and factories. The only alternative to these deep-sea sources lies on land, where a huge expansion of mines would trigger environmental havoc: more sinkholes, devastated wildlife and polluted soil and groundwater. It is therefore time to plunder the riches of the deep to save our planet’s smouldering landscapes, it is argued.
These proposals are rejected outright by many scientists and green activists who say the colossal deep-sea dredging that would be involved in raising these minerals would trash swaths of ocean floor and wipe out precious, slow-growing animals and plants, while clouds of toxic sediments would be sent spiralling up from the deep, destroying marine food chains in the process. Deep-sea mining will only worsen our ecological woes, they maintain.
The differences between the sides are profound and highlight a critical global dilemma: how can we produce the metals we need to build a green technology without causing more environmental chaos? Can we afford to ignore the mineral bounties of the deep? If we do turn our back on them, we would at least protect one of the Earth’s last surviving pristine habitats. On the other hand, we might also compromise our ability to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century and find ourselves racing into a future where temperatures rise by several degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. Devastation would ensue.
The world needs time to evaluate these competing claims. Environmental impact reports could be carried out, mining plans assessed and pollution risks calculated. We might achieve a better understanding of the risks and benefits of deep-sea mining. At the same time, engineers and entrepreneurs could be given a chance to develop batteries and turbines that are not reliant on metals whose extraction is linked with ecological carnage.
The problem is that the world no longer has that time. We have known for more than 40 years that global heating is a real phenomenon, yet national leaders failed to take action until the evidence became overwhelming a few years ago. The dishonest claims of climate change deniers, backed by major industrial and media concerns, have played a critical and shameful role in leaving us so badly prepared.
What is needed is urgent investment – private and public – in technologies that will address these issues. We must find materials for constructing batteries, solar panels and wind turbines without using resources that will lay waste to landscapes or the seabed and we must do this in the shortest time possible. Funding such work must be seen as a critical imperative. We can reach net-zero emissions and protect the environment, but only if such work is financed swiftly and comprehensively.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/t ... d=msedgntp
Observer editorial 11 hrs ago
Deep-sea mining has become one of our planet’s most divisive problems. By stripping the ocean floor of its vast mineral wealth, proponents say we can obtain the cobalt, manganese, nickel and copper we urgently need for the green technologies – the electric vehicles, batteries and wind turbines – that must replace our carbon-emitting cars, power plants and factories. The only alternative to these deep-sea sources lies on land, where a huge expansion of mines would trigger environmental havoc: more sinkholes, devastated wildlife and polluted soil and groundwater. It is therefore time to plunder the riches of the deep to save our planet’s smouldering landscapes, it is argued.
These proposals are rejected outright by many scientists and green activists who say the colossal deep-sea dredging that would be involved in raising these minerals would trash swaths of ocean floor and wipe out precious, slow-growing animals and plants, while clouds of toxic sediments would be sent spiralling up from the deep, destroying marine food chains in the process. Deep-sea mining will only worsen our ecological woes, they maintain.
The differences between the sides are profound and highlight a critical global dilemma: how can we produce the metals we need to build a green technology without causing more environmental chaos? Can we afford to ignore the mineral bounties of the deep? If we do turn our back on them, we would at least protect one of the Earth’s last surviving pristine habitats. On the other hand, we might also compromise our ability to reach net-zero emissions by the middle of the century and find ourselves racing into a future where temperatures rise by several degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. Devastation would ensue.
The world needs time to evaluate these competing claims. Environmental impact reports could be carried out, mining plans assessed and pollution risks calculated. We might achieve a better understanding of the risks and benefits of deep-sea mining. At the same time, engineers and entrepreneurs could be given a chance to develop batteries and turbines that are not reliant on metals whose extraction is linked with ecological carnage.
The problem is that the world no longer has that time. We have known for more than 40 years that global heating is a real phenomenon, yet national leaders failed to take action until the evidence became overwhelming a few years ago. The dishonest claims of climate change deniers, backed by major industrial and media concerns, have played a critical and shameful role in leaving us so badly prepared.
What is needed is urgent investment – private and public – in technologies that will address these issues. We must find materials for constructing batteries, solar panels and wind turbines without using resources that will lay waste to landscapes or the seabed and we must do this in the shortest time possible. Funding such work must be seen as a critical imperative. We can reach net-zero emissions and protect the environment, but only if such work is financed swiftly and comprehensively.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/t ... d=msedgntp
Re: Solving Climate Change.
Greta Thunberg: Scotland 'not a world leader on climate change'
By Kevin Keane
BBC Scotland's environment correspondent
Related Topics
COP26
Campaigner Greta Thunberg says she doesn't regard Scotland as a world leader on climate change.
The Swedish activist told BBC Scotland she recognised that some countries "do a bit more than others" but that none were coming close to what was needed. On the Scottish Greens' deal to enter government, she said some politicians were "less worse" than others. But she said tackling climate change was not as easy as voting for a green party.
The 18-year-old said: "Of course there might be some politicians that are slightly less worse than others. That was very mean but you get the point. It's a hopeful sign that people want something that's more "green" - whatever green means - but in order to solve this we need to tackle this at a more systemic approach."
...
Earlier this month, the former UN climate change chief Christiana Figueres said she thought the conference should be "hybrid" with some talks happening in Glasgow while others are moved online. But Ms Thunberg says that should be avoided if a face-to-face meeting is safe.
She said: "I'm not an expert but we get much more results when we meet in person. It's hard to argue against that. But, of course, if it's not considered safe then we have to go for the safest option. To be honest, I don't think that either one will lead to much results. A physical meeting will probably bring more results but still nowhere close to what's needed."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58387017
How dare she?
I tweeted Greta Thunberg every day for a month, variations upon the theme 'Magma Energy can solve climate change. Ask me how' - but neither Ms Thunberg, nor her commie cohort showed the slightest interest.
Same story when I contacted Extinction Rebellion. The environmental left have no interest in solutions. They have a vested interest in the problem.
"...but still nowhere close to what's needed." She said, rubbing her hands together with glee! And the best part is, she didn't have to know anything at all about climate change to make that prediction.
If at COP 26, nations were to agree to develop magma energy as a global good, to provide limitless clean energy, to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling - it would completely change the narrative on climate change.
I'd be interested to hear her reaction!
By Kevin Keane
BBC Scotland's environment correspondent
Related Topics
COP26
Campaigner Greta Thunberg says she doesn't regard Scotland as a world leader on climate change.
The Swedish activist told BBC Scotland she recognised that some countries "do a bit more than others" but that none were coming close to what was needed. On the Scottish Greens' deal to enter government, she said some politicians were "less worse" than others. But she said tackling climate change was not as easy as voting for a green party.
The 18-year-old said: "Of course there might be some politicians that are slightly less worse than others. That was very mean but you get the point. It's a hopeful sign that people want something that's more "green" - whatever green means - but in order to solve this we need to tackle this at a more systemic approach."
...
Earlier this month, the former UN climate change chief Christiana Figueres said she thought the conference should be "hybrid" with some talks happening in Glasgow while others are moved online. But Ms Thunberg says that should be avoided if a face-to-face meeting is safe.
She said: "I'm not an expert but we get much more results when we meet in person. It's hard to argue against that. But, of course, if it's not considered safe then we have to go for the safest option. To be honest, I don't think that either one will lead to much results. A physical meeting will probably bring more results but still nowhere close to what's needed."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58387017
How dare she?
I tweeted Greta Thunberg every day for a month, variations upon the theme 'Magma Energy can solve climate change. Ask me how' - but neither Ms Thunberg, nor her commie cohort showed the slightest interest.
Same story when I contacted Extinction Rebellion. The environmental left have no interest in solutions. They have a vested interest in the problem.
"...but still nowhere close to what's needed." She said, rubbing her hands together with glee! And the best part is, she didn't have to know anything at all about climate change to make that prediction.
If at COP 26, nations were to agree to develop magma energy as a global good, to provide limitless clean energy, to power carbon sequestration, desalination, irrigation, recycling - it would completely change the narrative on climate change.
I'd be interested to hear her reaction!
Re: Solving Climate Change.
Climate change: Big increase in weather disasters over the past five decades
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
The number of weather-related disasters to hit the world has increased five-fold over the past 50 years, says the World Meteorological Organization. However, the number of deaths because of the greater number of storms, floods and droughts has fallen sharply. Scientists say that climate change, more extreme weather and better reporting are behind the rise in these extreme events. But improvements to warning systems have helped limit the number of deaths.
In the 50 years between 1970 and 2019, there were more than 11,000 such disasters, according to a new atlas from the WMO that charts the scale of these events. Over two million people died as a result of these hazards, with economic losses amounting to $3.64 trillion.
"The number of weather, climate and water extremes are increasing and will become more frequent and severe in many parts of the world as a result of climate change," said WMO Secretary-General Prof Petteri Taalas. "That means more heatwaves, drought and forest fires such as those we have observed recently in Europe and North America. We have more water vapour in the atmosphere, which is exacerbating extreme rainfall and deadly flooding. The warming of the oceans has affected the frequency and area of existence of the most intense tropical storms," he added.
More than 90% of the deaths related to weather disasters have occurred in developing countries. The biggest killers have been droughts, responsible for 650,000 deaths; while at the other end of the scale, extreme temperatures took nearly 56,000 lives. Reported losses in the decade between 2010-2019 were around $383m per day, a seven-fold increase on the $49m per day between 1970-1979.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58396975
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent
The number of weather-related disasters to hit the world has increased five-fold over the past 50 years, says the World Meteorological Organization. However, the number of deaths because of the greater number of storms, floods and droughts has fallen sharply. Scientists say that climate change, more extreme weather and better reporting are behind the rise in these extreme events. But improvements to warning systems have helped limit the number of deaths.
In the 50 years between 1970 and 2019, there were more than 11,000 such disasters, according to a new atlas from the WMO that charts the scale of these events. Over two million people died as a result of these hazards, with economic losses amounting to $3.64 trillion.
"The number of weather, climate and water extremes are increasing and will become more frequent and severe in many parts of the world as a result of climate change," said WMO Secretary-General Prof Petteri Taalas. "That means more heatwaves, drought and forest fires such as those we have observed recently in Europe and North America. We have more water vapour in the atmosphere, which is exacerbating extreme rainfall and deadly flooding. The warming of the oceans has affected the frequency and area of existence of the most intense tropical storms," he added.
More than 90% of the deaths related to weather disasters have occurred in developing countries. The biggest killers have been droughts, responsible for 650,000 deaths; while at the other end of the scale, extreme temperatures took nearly 56,000 lives. Reported losses in the decade between 2010-2019 were around $383m per day, a seven-fold increase on the $49m per day between 1970-1979.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58396975
Re: Solving Climate Change.
Nuclear energy is anything but clean
The nuclear power industry has successfully rebranded an appallingly toxic energy industry by never mentioning the terrible legacy of nuclear waste, writes Ann Denise Lanes
Letters
Wed 25 Aug 2021 18.06 BST
Re your report (Nuclear storage plans for north of England stir up local opposition, 23 August), it is no surprise that ongoing discussions to choose locations for the dumping of nuclear waste are cloaked in secrecy.
Over the last decade, the nuclear power industry has successfully rebranded an appallingly toxic energy industry as “zero carbon” and even “clean” (Zero-carbon electricity outstrips fossil fuels in Britain across 2019, 1 January 2020) by never mentioning the terrible legacy of nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is neither clean nor zero-carbon when you consider its complete fuel cycle, from uranium mining overseas to the energy-intensive production of fuel rods to the management of highly toxic radioactive waste products such as plutonium.
The nuclear lobby has done a very effective PR job in diverting attention away from everything other than the electricity feed into the National Grid. It knows that there is no safe long-term solution for storing nuclear waste – how could you guarantee safety from the most dangerous chemical element on the planet for 24,000 years (the half-life of one of the plutonium isotopes typically present in nuclear waste)? The last thing this industry wants is an open discussion. It would reopen the debate on nuclear waste that it has, up to now, successfully buried in millions of pounds’ worth of rebranding. Hence the secrecy.
Ann Denise Lanes
Halton, Lancashire
Nuclear energy is key in fight for climate
Letters 15 hrs ago
The letter on nuclear energy (25 August) sadly could not be more wrong – nuclear is one of the cleanest fuels we have, and has always been so. The carbon and material footprints of nuclear – for its entire lifetime, including mining and decommissioning – are lower than solar and on a par with wind, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Moreover, the nuclear industry manages its waste stream – that is more than can be said for the solar industry, which is set to produce millions of tons of toxic waste. Besides, spent nuclear fuel is not “waste” but a valuable source of low-carbon energy that can be recycled via reprocessing or proposed breeder reactors, thereby neutralising the vast majority of the radioactivity. The carbon and materials footprint of nuclear – for its entire lifetime, including mining and decommissioning – are lower than solar and on a par with wind. At a time when we need every tool in the box to fight the climate crisis – and nuclear is one of the most effective – isn’t it time we started to look at the facts rather than repeat myths about nuclear waste?'
Rob Loveday
Generation Atomic
The nuclear power industry has successfully rebranded an appallingly toxic energy industry by never mentioning the terrible legacy of nuclear waste, writes Ann Denise Lanes
Letters
Wed 25 Aug 2021 18.06 BST
Re your report (Nuclear storage plans for north of England stir up local opposition, 23 August), it is no surprise that ongoing discussions to choose locations for the dumping of nuclear waste are cloaked in secrecy.
Over the last decade, the nuclear power industry has successfully rebranded an appallingly toxic energy industry as “zero carbon” and even “clean” (Zero-carbon electricity outstrips fossil fuels in Britain across 2019, 1 January 2020) by never mentioning the terrible legacy of nuclear waste. Nuclear energy is neither clean nor zero-carbon when you consider its complete fuel cycle, from uranium mining overseas to the energy-intensive production of fuel rods to the management of highly toxic radioactive waste products such as plutonium.
The nuclear lobby has done a very effective PR job in diverting attention away from everything other than the electricity feed into the National Grid. It knows that there is no safe long-term solution for storing nuclear waste – how could you guarantee safety from the most dangerous chemical element on the planet for 24,000 years (the half-life of one of the plutonium isotopes typically present in nuclear waste)? The last thing this industry wants is an open discussion. It would reopen the debate on nuclear waste that it has, up to now, successfully buried in millions of pounds’ worth of rebranding. Hence the secrecy.
Ann Denise Lanes
Halton, Lancashire
Nuclear energy is key in fight for climate
Letters 15 hrs ago
The letter on nuclear energy (25 August) sadly could not be more wrong – nuclear is one of the cleanest fuels we have, and has always been so. The carbon and material footprints of nuclear – for its entire lifetime, including mining and decommissioning – are lower than solar and on a par with wind, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Moreover, the nuclear industry manages its waste stream – that is more than can be said for the solar industry, which is set to produce millions of tons of toxic waste. Besides, spent nuclear fuel is not “waste” but a valuable source of low-carbon energy that can be recycled via reprocessing or proposed breeder reactors, thereby neutralising the vast majority of the radioactivity. The carbon and materials footprint of nuclear – for its entire lifetime, including mining and decommissioning – are lower than solar and on a par with wind. At a time when we need every tool in the box to fight the climate crisis – and nuclear is one of the most effective – isn’t it time we started to look at the facts rather than repeat myths about nuclear waste?'
Rob Loveday
Generation Atomic
Re: Solving Climate Change.
To get back on the True and Right track is to just simply recognize that it IS 'businesses' and 'investors', themselves, which is what iIS causing climate change, itself.Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:52 am Clearly, this is not the usual anti-capitalist climate change drawl, and yet the assumptions that we need to 'cut, reduce, slash' are carried over from a left wing dominated narrative on the environment. Since the 1960's the left have filtered all their facts through the lens of anti-capitalist politics, while the right have engaged in climate change denial - so that's where the discussion now takes place, between left wing activism and right wing denial. Consequently, the possibility of applying the technology to develop limitless clean energy from magma, and sustain capitalist growth, never comes into focus. The right won't admit there's a problem, and the left have no interest in solutions.
"To get on track, we need businesses, investors, cities and regions to take climate science for what it is – an existential warning – and start cutting emissions and building resilience in 2021."
Money dies NOT stop, slow, not prevent climate change.
Money, itself, or more correctly, 'the love of money', itself, which 'you', adult human beings, all have is THE CAUSEof climate change.
Understand this FACT then you will realize HOW and WHY "your solution" will NOT work. You are still seeing that money is needed in order to be able to achieve "your solution".
Money is a completely UNNECESSARY commodity in the 'world'.
The love of money is CAUSING climate change. So, thee ACTUAL Real and True SOLUTION, should be obvious now.
Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 11:52 am In my view, a better solution occurs on the international level - via an agreement to develop magma energy as a global good; intended initially to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, while building capacity to transition from fossil fuels to an admixture of clean electricity and hydrogen fuel.
There are many advantages to such an approach; not least that politically - it should be easier to deliver upon even an admittedly large infrastructure project than promises to reduce carbon emissions, in face of a domestic political obligation to grow the economy. Spending vast amounts of tax payers money, entrenching the wrong energy infrastructure on the basis of an assumption that limits to growth is insurmountable; and so we must cut, slash, and reduce - would be a fatal mistake.
"A Marshall Plan for climate action puts businesses, investors, cities and regions at its core – driving ambition from the bottom up to national governments. It embeds the IPCC’s science across every corner of the economy, directing public and private investment from fossil fuels and deforestation to clean energy, electric and active transport and nature-positive business."
The magma energy approach is both less and more ambitious. Less ambitious because it requires less imposition upon individuals, business and investors to achieve, and more ambitious because limitless clean energy is fundamentally necessary to a prosperous sustainable future. The left wing narrative is mistaken. Limits to growth can be transcended given sufficient clean energy - and energy revolutions, from meat eating to fossil fuels, have always preceded leaps forward for our species. Have less, pay more, stop this, tax that - forever after, is not a good idea. Rather we must explore the economic opportunity in transcending limits to growth through the application of technology - in much the same way we transcended Malthus dismal prophecy with trains, tractors and fertilisers.
The energy is there, on a truly massive scale, and the basic technologies exist to extract it. International agreement to harness that energy to secure the future of our planet would be hugely hopeful in my view. While it's outside the established narratives, paradoxically, what makes it seem improbable is what makes it the right answer. Or at least, the right answer must necessarily be improbable - as the most probable course leads to climate catastrophe.
"But the science shows that every bit of action today will limit another fraction of a degree warming – so we need to keep racing."
Surely developing magma energy is a more palatable improbability than a billion, unquantifiably effective, scattershot, pain in the ass impositions on everyone and/or thing in the hope they add up to sustainability somehow!
Re: Solving Climate Change.
Blaming the love of money is like blaming love of oxygen. If it weren't for inhalation, all our problems would be solved. Just stop breathing in. What you fail to appreciate, other than the necessary inevitability of money, is that capitalism operates within a legislative and regulatory framework. Legitimate business could operate perfectly well within a scientifically rational legislative and regulatory framework, and in that context would not imply a race to the bottom.Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 01, 2021 11:24 amTo get back on the True and Right track is to just simply recognize that it IS 'businesses' and 'investors', themselves, which is what iIS causing climate change, itself. Money dies NOT stop, slow, not prevent climate change. Money, itself, or more correctly, 'the love of money', itself, which 'you', adult human beings, all have is THE CAUSEof climate change. Understand this FACT then you will realize HOW and WHY "your solution" will NOT work. You are still seeing that money is needed in order to be able to achieve "your solution". Money is a completely UNNECESSARY commodity in the 'world'. The love of money is CAUSING climate change. So, thee ACTUAL Real and True SOLUTION, should be obvious now.
That's not where we are, because science was decried as heresy - so politics was not informed by science, even while science was used to drive the industrial revolution. However, even now - given limitless clean energy from magma, capitalism could be sustained long term. Consequently, it's not capitalism - per se, that's to blame for climate change. It's a mistaken relationship to science, leading to a misapplication of technology.
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Solving Climate Change.
I'll not give you any more of my time, your brain is made of granite, I'd rather you stay a self serving fool! Your premises are invalid, thus your conclusions false. I always look for the smart ones, that understand the legacy of humankind, those not in denial or deluded. I'm not a Michaelangelo, I'm far too tired to chisel a gem out of solid rock. You're not worth it, you're too far gone.Vitruvius wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 1:21 pmI disagree. Seeking to attribute blame offers no path to a sustainable future. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Sat Aug 07, 2021 3:54 amIn this case, to accept the "is" is a cop-out, is lazy, is cowardly and a failure to be truly affecting positive change. To wrestle with the "ought" is ground breaking, staying fit, brave, and revolutionary deserving of a noble prize.
You quoted the OP - did you not read it? There is no over population, and no inherent limit to resources if we apply the right technology. Solar is not the right technology, as it can never meet our energy needs, less yet exceed current energy demand - and so provide excess energy to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle. Solar can only ever prevent some small part of GHG emissions - and to do so requires a lot of infrastructure, not just square mile after mile of solar panels, but also energy storage infrastructure. Because solar is inconstant, you need to store that energy, and even then, still require fossil fuel back up generating capacity. Solar panels use toxic metals in their manufacture, last 25 years, and then are impossible to recycle and expensive to replace.SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 10:37 pmBut what you seem to be missing is that the earths resources are finite, and our population is an explosion with no apparent end in sight. We're not even bridling it. On it's course humanity is not sustainable. It's far more intelligent to place all our tech into returning to older ways, where recycling and sustainability are the number one and two money making industries. Solar is the smartest choice for power generation as there's no chance of disturbing anything on earth which may be key to life. We've been raping it for far too long. And if we screw it up much more, it may extinguish all life as we know it. Our problem is that we never really take the time to know the reasons we shouldn't, as we fear our own personal timeline might not allow for our so called success, our ultimate payoff, our names in history books. Or in other words, a bunch of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. As it all makes no difference to us when we're dead. We can't take it when we go. It's far better to take the slow road ensuring we have all our ducks in a row, so there's no room for error. Absolute certainty is the smartest choice.
Magma energy, I believe - does have the potential to meet and exceed current energy demand from clean energy, and used to sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate and recycle, multiplies resources - in much the same way the invention of tractors and fertilizers allowed food production to outpace population growth, and so prove the Malthusian prophecy wrong. Limits to growth is the same false prophecy. It's not necessarily so. As a matter of physical fact, resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and there's a virtually limitless source of energy in the molten interior of the earth. It seems technologically feasible to tap into that energy on a very large scale. Thus I submit, that's what we 'ought' to do; put aside the blame game, and apply the right technologies.
Otherwise, seeking to attribute blame, the fact that America consumes a lot of energy per person, for example, while China has a very large population, immediately stalls any progress. They can't even agree on the basis on which 'responsibility' should be attributed, but if you want to keep working on a Gordian knot that hasn't been untangled in 25 previous COPS, keep at it. Meanwhile - I think we can do an end run around all those huge, diametrically opposed, stalemated forces, by developing magma energy as a global good, specifically to address the climate and ecological crisis - and thus, make environmental gains without attributing blame, and without undermining economic prosperity. Attacking the climate and ecological crisis from the supply side does not imply a long series of costly, politically painful impositions upon society. Solar does, and that's why for you, it's about blame!
What I've said is the only way for humankind to survive themselves, PERIOD! At this time, I know more about humankind thus this planets life, than you'll ever know, (to the end of your days.)
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Solving Climate Change.
I knew you were incapable of staying any true course. To throw in the towel, wow! Weakness anyone? Cowardice, anyone? Lethargy, anyone?
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Solving Climate Change.
You can't expect much from a rock.Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:44 pmWelcome the the next chapter is global warming.Vitruvius wrote: ↑Mon Aug 09, 2021 5:42 pm
The BMW Hydrogen 7 is a limited production hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle built from 2005-2007 by German automobile manufacturer BMW. The car is based on BMW’s traditional gasoline-powered BMW 7 Series (E65) line of vehicles, and more specifically the 760Li. Unlike many other current hydrogen powered vehicles like those being produced by Hyundai, Honda, General Motors, and Daimler AG – which use fuel cell technology and hydrogen to produce electricity to power the vehicle – the BMW Hydrogen 7 burns the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine. 0-100 km/h 9.5 seconds - top speed 143 mph (230 km/h) (limited electronically.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
Yet another dinosaur from the BMW factory that will destroy the planet.
It demonstrates that lessons have not been learned and that this is little more than a publicity stunt.
Why would you want a car to do 143 mph in a country limited to 55mph?
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Wed Sep 01, 2021 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Solving Climate Change.
That's all due to a lack of education.
-
SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5725
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: Solving Climate Change.
All your magma crap will do is eventually create another Mars.
Solar is the only way out!
Solar is the only way out!