Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

I wonder if it would be hard to prove that the oil industry were responsible for the climate change caused by their product - after all they just produced the oil, it was other companies that chose to burn it. In reality it is the embedded energy in everything that we buy that has driven climate change so we are all responsible.

Yes, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the companies actually lied about the impact of emissions, despite knowing better, in order to delay/reduce a switch to alternatives, and to avoid any inclusion of those additional costs in the product.

Also, whilst we are all responsible for the emissions, because we use the products, if the cost was higher (reflecting the externality costs) then we would use less both in the past and going forward, this would help (and would have helped) but would have meant less sales, and less profits to the companies involved.

michaels

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yes, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that the companies actually lied about the impact of emissions, despite knowing better, in order to delay/reduce a switch to alternatives, and to avoid any inclusion of those additional costs in the product.

Also, whilst we are all responsible for the emissions, because we use the products, if the cost was higher (reflecting the externality costs) then we would use less both in the past and going forward, this would help (and would have helped) but would have meant less sales, and less profits to the companies involved.

In a competitive market it must be for the govt to fix the externalities, not individual companies who would most likely just go bankrupt. I do agree that deliberate misinformation and lobbying is a different issue.

Martyn1981

michaels wrote: »

In a competitive market it must be for the govt to fix the externalities, not individual companies who would most likely just go bankrupt. I do agree that deliberate misinformation and lobbying is a different issue.

But the governments will pander to the people, and in this case, the people did not believe there was a problem due to the massive and massively successful campaigns organised and funded by the FF industries.

It's all circular - false info was put out, and this allowed us to buy energy cheaper than we should have, by failing to pay for the externalities, and the companies to sell more product, for longer, as their prices were artificially low.

Nobody is innocent here, but lies and excuses should no longer be accepted.

PS - Nobody said it was for the individual companies to act, the problem is they delayed action by the governments, via morally and ethically unacceptable actions, and perhaps even illegal.

Martyn1981

This is mostly a rant about the lack of externality costs on FF's, but contains an interesting change in policy (actually a ramping up of costs / timelines of existing policies) by Germany due to the lack of progress in the recent COP talks.

Germany Plans To Increase The Price Of Carbon, But Is It Enough?

Putting a price on carbon is the most logical, sensible, and socially responsible way to restrain carbon dioxide emissions. Only idiots and tempestuous tweeters would say otherwise. Germany already has a price on carbon — a paltry 10 euros a ton but rising to 35 euros a ton by 2025. After the embarrassing collapse of international climate talks in Spain last week, Germany is now planning to enact as early as this Friday an immediate increase in its carbon fee to 25 euros a ton starting in 2021 and ratcheting up to 55 euros a ton in 2025. Even at that, some environmental groups are dissatisfied and calling for higher fees on carbon emissions.

Please note - we are already paying these carbon / externality costs, it's just that they are coming from energy bill levies, or general taxation, to support RE, BEV, storage subsidies etc..

Carbon pricing simply moves the costs onto the 'culprit', and that way, not only do we get the benefits of the targeted spend, but we also get the economic/environmental benefits of the impact on FF based demand.

Martyn1981

Article on reducing CO2 emissions by shipping.

It's slightly confusing, in that this refers to a $2/ton fuel levy to be used to help develop zero carbon shipping (probably Hydrogen based) over the next 10yrs - this fuel levy is separate to any plans to add a carbon tax to shipping fuels, which would be far, far higher than the teeny $2/ton. Hope that makes sense.

Zero-carbon ships on horizon under fuel levy plan

Shipping companies would have to pay a small levy on every tonne of fuel they use under proposals aimed at developing zero-carbon vessels within 10 years, transforming the high-carbon global shipping business.

Ships running on hydrogen or ammonia as fuel are thought to be technically possible, but more research and development is needed to bring forward the development of prototypes.

The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), which represents 80% of the global shipping industry, is proposing a $2 levy on every tonne of fuel consumed by ships, raising $500m a year that would be devoted to research and development of zero-carbon vessels.

“This is a very positive proposal,” said Guy Platten, the secretary general of the ICS. “We need to get to zero carbon [for shipping] and this is a transparent mechanism for raising funds that we need to help us do that. We have worked for years on this with the support of our members.”

Fuel costs about $400 a tonne at present, set to rise to an estimated $600 next year following the introduction of new regulations on cutting sulphur emissions from ship oil. The $2 levy is small in comparison, and Platten said it was kept low so that developing countries would see it as affordable, but it would still raise enough to fund the development of a new generation of ships in a decade or so.

Nico Muzi, the director of communications and campaigns at Transport & Environment, said: “That amount is simply ridiculous to spur innovation in the sector nor to be a driver to spur efficiency. If it is $2 per tonne of fuel, it is 42 times less than current CO2 prices in Europe. To rein in long-ignored maritime emissions and make shipping do its fair share, Europe must bring shipping into its carbon market and mandate CO2 standards for all ships calling at its ports.”

Bennett said the shipping industry would be capable of halving emissions by 2050 only if a large proportion of the global fleet was using zero-carbon fuels. He predicted that the rest of the fleet could be converted soon after, bringing the goal of 100% decarbonisation closer.

He said the initiative would not affect potential proposals to bring shipping within the scope of the EU’s emissions trading scheme.

Martyn1981

Strewth, one way or another 'IT'S' gonna get you. :eek:

US among top 10 countries for pollution-related deaths, new study shows

The United States is among the top 10 deadliest countries for pollution-related fatalities, according to a landmark new global study, which warns that understanding the magnitude of the pollution crisis is being obstructed by “vested interests and overtaxed political infrastructures”.

Toxic air, water, land and workplaces killed at least 8.3 million people around the world in 2017, accounting for 15% of all premature deaths.

and / or

Depression and suicide linked to air pollution in new global study

People living with air pollution have higher rates of depression and suicide, a systematic review of global data has found.

Cutting air pollution around the world to the EU’s legal limit could prevent millions of people becoming depressed, the research suggests. This assumes that exposure to toxic air is causing these cases of depression. Scientists believe this is likely but is difficult to prove beyond doubt.

The particle pollution analysed in the study is produced by burning fossil fuels in vehicles, homes and industry. The researchers said the new evidence further strengthened calls to tackle what the World Health Organization calls the “silent public health emergency” of dirty air.

“We’ve shown that air pollution could be causing substantial harm to our mental health, making the case for cleaning up the air we breathe even more urgent,” said Isobel Braithwaite, at University College London (UCL), who led the research.

Time for a golden oldie:

Martyn1981

The last post was so depressing I had to go hunting for something better to end on today, so perhaps a Tory promise (no sniggering in the back please!)

If we can rollout 40GW of off-shore wind by 2030, then that would be roughly half our generation/consumption at today's levels, though I don't know if the 40GW is to be commissioned by 2030 or contracted by 2030, as off-shore wind contracts do seem to take about 5yrs to complete.

Johnson urged to deliver 40GW UK offshore pledge

The UK Committee of Climate Change (CCC) has called on the new Conservative government to deliver on its 40GW by 2030 offshore wind manifesto pledge and ensure any energy market reforms are complementary to the country's net zero emissions goal.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The last post was so depressing I had to go hunting for something better to end on today, so perhaps a Tory promise (no sniggering in the back please!)

If we can rollout 40GW of off-shore wind by 2030, then that would be roughly half our generation/consumption at today's levels, though I don't know if the 40GW is to be commissioned by 2030 or contracted by 2030, as off-shore wind contracts do seem to take about 5yrs to complete.

Johnson urged to deliver 40GW UK offshore pledge

Why do they need to do anything?

Don't you keep posting 'studies' which ensure us solar and wind is today or will be shortly from today cheaper than the alternatives?

Exiled_Tyke

GreatApe wrote: »

Why do they need to do anything?

Don't you keep posting 'studies' which ensure us solar and wind is today or will be shortly from today cheaper than the alternatives?

Seriously why don't you just give it a rest? Most of us here are very pleased to see the articles Martyn's research digs up. And we can form our own judgements on what we agree or disagree with.

Solarchaser

He lives for the attention.
Like a toddler, any attention is good attention.