Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

ed110220 wrote: »

It's worth noting that methane emissions from hydroelectric dams vary greatly from dam to dam and depend among other things on the size of the area flooded, whether vegetation was removed prior to flooding and whether there is a strong seasonal cycle in water levels. Generally only the worst dams in the tropics have GHG emissions in any way comparable with an equivalent fossil fuel plant, typically where a large area is flooded for a small amount of electricity generation and where a strong seasonal cycle in water levels allows abundant plant growth when water levels drop and then the water level rises and floods the vegetation, causing it to die, decay under water and release methane.

There are other good reasons why many hydroelectric schemes aren't green such as flooding and destroying important habitats, blocking fish migration etc, but again I wouldn't say all are on balance bad. On balance I'd say garden ponds are highly beneficial to the environment.

Hi

It's also necessary to compare against a baseline of decomposition products (& by-products) of the same volume of organic matter when not in water as opposed to a null condition ... it's highly likely that any difference between concentrations of (say) methane would be due to the relative concentrations of organic matter transported to a large body of calm water which simply acts as a sedimentation tank, thus concentrating decomposition from a catchment area much larger than the body of water itself ....

HTH
Z

silverwhistle

JKenH wrote: »

It is not the technical news items that generally cause the problems as much as the overtly political (AGW) stuff. It is the AGW/political arguments that are the most divisive and polarising...

Hang on. The arguments have a pretty solid backing of 97% of scientists, last time I looked. If there is any overtly political stuff it is from the deniers with an agenda.



I've seen the same sort of arguing in other contexts, and you may not be aware of what you are doing, but blaming 'political' attitudes is part of the problem.


As for arguments elsewhere about 1% or not 1%, cumulative or not; it's all a bit dancing on the head of a needle. I'm definitely not the best off amongst my circle, but I still don't argue the toss whether I had a coffee at the end of the meal when we settle the bill, and that's a far less important matter. We shouldn't be seeking to _do_ less because of some numerical, primary school playground argument about who started it.

pile-o-stone

We certainly seem to be dancing to the tunes of the green conspiracy, climate change deniers on this board recently.

JKenH

silverwhistle wrote: »

I've seen the same sort of arguing in other contexts, and you may not be aware of what you are doing, but blaming 'political' attitudes is part of the problem.

But that is exactly what Mart is openly doing - he is the one attaching political labels such as FF apologist.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

We certainly seem to be dancing to the tunes of the green conspiracy, climate change deniers on this board recently.

FF apologist, climate change denier, green conspiracy whatever makes you feel best

http://letskeepitcivil.org/name-calling-or-labeling

JKenH

silverwhistle wrote: »

As for arguments elsewhere about 1% or not 1%, cumulative or not; it's all a bit dancing on the head of a needle. I'm definitely not the best off amongst my circle, but I still don't argue the toss whether I had a coffee at the end of the meal when we settle the bill, and that's a far less important matter. We shouldn't be seeking to _do_ less because of some numerical, primary school playground argument about who started it.

Not an argument I’ve been making but hey-ho, what’s that matter, I’m one of them. Guilty by association.

You could tell Mart that as well.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

But that is exactly what Mart is openly doing - he is the one attaching political labels such as FF apologist.

Sorry Ken, I did not rush the 'duck' test on you.

Firstly you were quite clear that you didn't believe there was an inappropriate action by the FF industries.

Secondly, you then tried to belittle it with claims of 'just one company' (Exxon).

Thirdly, you then tried to excuse it as being something done back around WWII.

Fourthly, you have repeatedly tried to excuse it by references to 'actions 40yrs ago' when one and all of us* are aware that the actions have been over the last 40yrs (at least) not 40yrs ago, and campaigning still persists. [Note - I appreciate that you keep saying '40yrs ago' in an attempt to irritate me, but I don't mind as that wording, and its repetition is beneficial to me, when openly referencing your 'game'. M]

*Including I believe yourself.

So I am not 'labelling' you as a FF apologist, I am simply acknowledging your vast number of FF apologist statements on this green and ethical thread.

If I the evidence does not meet the requirements for me to call you a FF apologist (I believe it does) then at the very least I can conclude that a FF apologist would think you were a FF apologist.


The FF industries actions over the last 40yrs, have delayed serious action on RE deployment by around 30yrs, and led to ever higher annual additions of CO2 when earlier action would have meant we would now have seen a peak in annual emissions and already be reducing them.

The difference between those two graphs (where we are, and where we could have been) is a vast amount of cumulative CO2 that will cause a vast amount more damage, and require a vast amount more action to address.

You might chose to forgive/excuse/apologise/deny the actions of the FF industries, but I suspect most won't.

Martyn1981

silverwhistle wrote: »

Hang on. The arguments have a pretty solid backing of 97% of scientists, last time I looked. If there is any overtly political stuff it is from the deniers with an agenda.

Depending on how the question is phrased, the consensus varies from the 'old' 97% figure, which is obviously going to rise with ever greater volumes of data, and 99.9%.

Is the climate consensus 97%, 99.9%, or is plate tectonics a hoax?

Does it matter if the climate consensus is 97% or 99.9%?
The title of our paper asked, “Does it matter if the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is 97% or 99.99%?” Either way, the public dramatically underestimates the level of expert consensus. When asked how many climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, the average answer is between half and two-thirds – a far cry from the 97% reality. Just 12% of Americans realize the consensus is higher than 90%.

We call this discrepancy the “consensus gap,” and it’s important because the expert consensus is a “gateway belief.” When people are aware of the consensus, they’re more likely to accept the scientific reality of human-caused global warming, and to support policies to tackle the problem. Right now, most people consider climate change a low priority because they think scientists are still divided on what’s causing global warming.

In reality that question was settled decades ago, but a fossil fuel-funded misinformation campaign combined with false balance in the media have created this misperception of a divided scientific community. Thus it really doesn’t matter if the expert consensus is 97% or 99.99% – the vast majority of Americans don’t even realize it’s above 90%. That’s in large part because so many Republican Party leaders like Lamar Smith – who rely on campaign funding from the fossil fuel industry – put so much effort into sowing doubt about the expert consensus. As Republican strategist Frank Luntz wrote nearly 20 years ago:

Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.

That means the rest of us need to make communicating the 97% consensus as widely as possible a priority to move “the debate” past consensus denial.

But, perhaps a better question is, if there is 'only' a 3% chance that we are doing something utterly stupid and harmful to our own future, be it economical or environmental, then shouldn't we act regardless?

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

FF apologist, climate change denier, green conspiracy whatever makes you feel best

http://letskeepitcivil.org/name-calling-or-labeling

How about troll?

https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/


Turning a News Group into a Gossip Corner
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a “resource burn.”

By implementing continuous irrelevant postings that distract and disrupt the forum readers, they are effectively prevented from being productive. If the intensity of gradual dilution is great enough, the readers will stop researching and simply slip into a “gossip mode.”

In this state, they can be more easily misdirected away from facts. The less informed they are, the easier it is to control the entire group in the direction you desire.

Forum Sliding
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum, it can be quickly removed from public view by “forum sliding.” This maneuver brings unrelated postings to the top of the forum, and the critical posting “slides” down the front page — out of public view.

You're ruining this forum, plain and simple. You might have a beef with individuals on here but that doesn't justify ruining it for the rest of us. You said in a post made by your other username that you have an obsessive nature. That is actually a good thing to have if you channel it correctly - obsess about learning a musical instrument, solving world hunger, whatever. Just do something more constructive with your time.

pile-o-stone

GREEN NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good to see international investment in renewables projects.

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3080628/uk-climate-investments-ramps-up-support-for-south-african-renewables-projects

UK Climate Investments ramps up support for South African renewables projects

UK Climate Investment (UKCI), the joint venture between Macquarie-owned Green Investment Group and the UK government's Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has announced an agreement to mobilise £14m of investment in a leading South African renewable energy developer.

UKCI announced yesterday that it has finalised a R253m deal with H1 Holdings that will support the development of 254MW of clean energy projects across South Africa.