Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Do you stand by your original statement that only 1%, 1.4ppm of the additional 140ppm is due to UK emissions?

I'll try it another way....

If the global CO2 concentration remains at 400ppm, our contribution to keeping it there is 1%, If it rises (which it will surely do), our contribution to the increase is likely to be just under 1%.

I don't really want to open the 'cumulative' argument because there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how much of the historic CO2 has been absorbed by the sea.

There you go....something else for you do add to my "audit trail".

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

I'll try it another way....

If the global CO2 concentration remains at 400ppm, our contribution to keeping it there is 1%, If it rises (which it will surely do), our contribution to the increase is likely to be just under 1%.

I don't really want to open the 'cumulative' argument because there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how much of the historic CO2 has been absorbed by the sea.

There you go....something else for you do add to my "audit trail".

That's seems fair, the UK's contribution to annual additional CO2 emissions seems to be calculated currently at around 1%.

As we have approx 1% of the population, that seems to prove (numerically) our responsibility to act, though of course morally, even if it was less, we would still need to do as much as possible. More so given our head start on other nations, leading to that 5% figure of cumulative additions we are responsible for.

Sadly, the figure won't remain at 400ppm, it's already hit 415ppm (as measured at Mauna Loa, the usual reference point), and is going up ever faster.

Martyn1981

They may not have been able to prevent the blackout, but turns out UK batts did play a role in helping resolve the situation/recovery.

UK battery storage fleet plays pivotal role in power cut response

zeupater

1961Nick wrote: »

I'll try it another way....

If the global CO2 concentration remains at 400ppm, our contribution to keeping it there is 1%, If it rises (which it will surely do), our contribution to the increase is likely to be just under 1%.

I don't really want to open the 'cumulative' argument because there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how much of the historic CO2 has been absorbed by the sea.

There you go....something else for you do add to my "audit trail".

Hi

In which lies the issue and fully supports the position that M has been suggesting all along ....

Nobody can defend the indefensible for long without resorting to employing spin, smoke & mirrors (above referenced example included!) & that ploy so often fails even the most basic tests .... sometimes it's better to admit errors than continually attempt to save face as the act of trying this simply has the opposite effect ...

Maybe it's time that the main protagonists in this discussion realised that they're being played as puppets in a game of disruption & took the appropriate actions ... after all, isn't deliberate disruption of discussions on RE & energy efficiency just what we've seen plenty of evidence of recently?!

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

Been watching lots of bad news coming out of the US recently. Several states have passed laws meaning that pipeline protesters previously protected by first amendment rights to free speech, could now face prison time for 'intent' to cause trouble/damage ..... that's nice, and a senior Trump appointee in the US Department of Agriculture was filmed bragging how hard it is to get rid of (sack) federal employees, but they managed to get around half of the scientists to resign by a forced move across the country.

So ........ it's nice to see that nearly half the US States are starting to push back against against Trump's energy policies:

New York leads coalition of 22 US states in lawsuit against Trump’s energy plan

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Maybe it's time that the main protagonists in this discussion realised that they're being played as puppets in a game of disruption & took the appropriate actions ... after all, isn't deliberate disruption of discussions on RE & energy efficiency just what we've seen plenty of evidence of recently?!

HTH
Z

Hi Z, and yes you are completely correct, and worse still I am completely aware that certain posters are running a little campaign to cause trouble and 'knock me', but the issue is, should we push back against lies, mis-information, anti-AGW posts etc or not?

You know as well as I do that sometimes they get bored and move on, other times they smell blood and dig in deeper. This thread is awash now with alternating 'nice, insult, nice, insult' posts about me from one person, who even uses identical terminology to GA to attack me.

For now then, can I ask you to deal with any lies, spin and nonsense, and I'll just concentrate on the good RE news, which is far more fun for me anyway. And we'll see if they get bored?

zeupater

Martyn1981 wrote: »

.. hit 415ppm (as measured at Mauna Loa, the usual reference point), and is going up ever faster.

Hi

I've always had a bit of an issue around the logic of determining global CO2 concentrations using equipment in highly volcanic regions, let alone actually including instrumentation on an active volcano itself!

HTH
Z

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I've always had a bit of an issue around the logic of determining global CO2 concentrations using equipment in highly volcanic regions, let alone actually including instrumentation on an active volcano itself!

HTH
Z

Careful....you'll end up in the 'Denialist anti-AGW club'?:eek:

1961Nick

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In which lies the issue and fully supports the position that M has been suggesting all along ....


HTH
Z

It doesn't support the position that Mart has been taking all along.....he's referencing historical emissions & I'm discussing our CO2 contribution going forward.

Can't change history but we can make a small difference to the future.....and the size of that difference was the original point & I stand by it.

The end!

Martyn1981

I recall several posters pushing back against claims (in June I believe) that the UK shouldn't spend money on fighting AGW. They raised the issue of health benefits. Well this article covers a part of that, looking at the 'co-benefits' of RE regardless of AGW.

Health Benefits Of Renewable Energy Far Outweigh The Costs, Say MIT Researchers

There is a lot of hoopla and hyperventilating in the press about how expensive renewable energy will be. “Redesigning the electrical grid to interface efficiently with distributed renewables will cost a lot of money,” the gloomsters (who are paid by the fossil fuel industry) all say. Yes, progress costs money. The interstate highway system was expensive but it unlocked a massive increase in economic productivity that far outweighed its cost.

Researchers at MIT have published a new study that claims the economic value of the health benefits realized by meeting the renewable portfolio standards already in place in several states will exceed the cost of meeting those standards by a wide margin.

What is interesting about the MIT study is that it has nothing to do with global warming or rising carbon dioxide levels. Burning fossil fuels — any fossil fuels — creates pollutants known as fine particulate matter. These tiny particles of soot less than 2.5 microns in size can transfer directly into the bloodstream in the lungs.

Once absorbed into the body, they promote heart and lung disease, making us sick and in some cases shortening our lives. The illnesses attributed to fine particulate matter have economic consequences such as medical bills, lost income, and reduced productivity. Lowering the amount of fine particulates would have what economists call “health co-benefits.”

According to MIT associate professor Noelle Selin, those health co-benefits add up to a lot of money — so much, in fact, that the benefits more than pay for the wind and solar systems needed to meet the renewable portfolio standards already in place in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware.

Those states were chosen because they tend to get more of their electricity from coal-fired generating stations than other US states. As a group, their renewable energy targets are quite modest, averaging just 13% renewables by 2030. The research was published this month in the journal Environmental Research Letters.