Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

I think this article is interesting as it looks at decisions today but their impact in the future, and the need to start changing processes to be more green. So do we open a new coal mine (for coking coal) or pressure steel making to start moving to greener processes?

New Cumbria coalmine 'incompatible' with climate crisis goals

Now a report by the independent thinktank the Green Alliance has found the colliery, along the coast from Whitehaven, will hold back the development of low-carbon steelmaking.

The report, authored by two university professors who specialise in environmental issues, claims that opening a new coalmine would hinder this strategy by ensuring the continued availability of cheap coal.

The UK has set a target to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, and has committed to switch to lower carbon steel production, announcing a clean steel fund in August 2019.

Recommendations made in the report include using less steel, using recycled steel, improving the efficiency of steel production with conventional blast furnaces, and producing steel with new processes such as renewable energy.

Dustin Benton, Green Alliance’s policy director, said: “Clean energy has already made coal obsolete in the power sector. Our previous work shows that UK demand for coking coal would halve if steel producers opted for cheaper, cleaner steel production using today’s technologies.

“In addition, innovation in zero carbon steel production means this mine will likely become redundant in the near future, saddling Cumbria with an expensive stranded asset.”

Martyn1981

**Preachy warning**

Being extremely naive, I've always been struck by how much pushback the negative nancies and deniers have shown over the last decade on here. I simply assumed that they would enjoy facts, and be glad to know the truth so they could revise their statements and claims going forward.

Obviously I've now learnt that these fact denying, religious zealot types, aren't interested in learning, but simply in defending the 20+yr old decision they once made after perhaps ...... 20secs of consideration.

So, I've always thought it sad that we would have to see extreme impacts and harm from climate change before they 'gave up'.

But having watched the news and seen how much effort has gone into spreading lies that the Australian fires are a result of 'greeny arson' to drive the debate, I'm starting to give up hope for facts and education ever changing their opinions. I know they only represent a small proportion of my peers, but it's getting ever more embarrassing to be an old white man.

Climate Deniers Would Rather See A Continent Burn Than Be Wrong

“I used to believe that only catastrophes manifestly caused by climate change would break through the psychological walls of denial. But I was mistaken. It’s now clear that the deniers would sooner see the whole country destroyed than admit they have been wrong. Their houses could burn down, their families could be incinerated, and still, they would find a way of dismissing the scientific evidence.” — Clive Hamilton, A Letter From Canberra.

He isn’t the only one writing. Michale Mann, a top climate scientist, penned an opinion piece with The Guardian that was inspired by his vacation to the Blue Mountains, a landscape that has changed from a lush rainforest to an ominous scene that could be a landscape from any apocalyptic movie. Mann writes that this area has “panoramic vistas that challenge any the world has to offer.”

“It too is now threatened by climate change. I witnessed this firsthand.” — Michael Mann, The Guardian.

Martyn1981

Bit big!

Siemens Gamesa 11MW giant rises in Denmark

Work is well underway to install Siemens Gamesa's 11MW prototype offshore wind turbine at the Osterild test centre in Denmark.

NigeWick

ed110220 wrote: »

APotentially this is a massive breakthrough

What's wrong with real food? Permaculture systems would have the ability to feed 10-12 Billion and it's likely the human population will stabilise at about 10 Billion.

NigeWick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I've always been struck by how much pushback the negative nancies and deniers have shown over the last decade on here.

See the "signature" below my posts.

Hexane

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Michael Mann, a top climate scientist, penned an opinion piece with The Guardian that was inspired by his vacation to the Blue Mountains

Michael Mann lives and works in north-east USA. I wonder how he travelled to south-eastern Australia for his vacation - a round trip of about twenty thousand miles.

ed110220

NigeWick wrote: »

What's wrong with real food? Permaculture systems would have the ability to feed 10-12 Billion and it's likely the human population will stabilise at about 10 Billion.

Photosynthesis is extremely inefficient at producing food from sunlight. Therefore large amounts of land are necessary for food production. Agriculture is the largest cause of habitat loss. Many crops will only grow satisfactorily in places that have high nature conservation and carbon storage value, e.g. oil palms requiring a climate with an average temp of about 27C and over 100mm of rain per month year round, which would naturally support tropical rainforests or peat swamp forests. Obviously air food is not the only solution, but it could be an important one.

NigeWick

ed110220 wrote: »

Photosynthesis is extremely inefficient at producing food from sunlight.

That's why we eat ruminants. If managed correctly, their pastures are regenerative and store more carbon than trees.

Martyn1981

A look at the possibly momentous decision by BlackRock to revise/review their investments in the FF industry. Note that this isn't necessarily about being green, just the growing financial concerns over investing in FF industries and their ultimate loss of value when asset values are written down.

I don't think this is (yet) a turning point, but we are starting to see ever more investment firms and banks twitching at the wheel.

BlackRock Has A New Attitude About Fossil Fuel Investing

[I can't pick any extracts - it's all interlinked and important. M.]

pile-o-stone

NigeWick wrote: »

That's why we eat ruminants. If managed correctly, their pastures are regenerative and store more carbon than trees.

Would there be enough pasture land in the world to house the amount of cattle that people eat, especially as more countries adopt the western diet? I appreciate we are making more land available for cattle in places like Brazil, but that's at the expense of cutting down rain forests.


"Livestock takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land, yet produces less than 20% of the world’s supply of calories"

"We see that countries with low land requirements have very low levels of beef consumption—nearly all countries which fall below the 50 percent habitable land marker have per capita consumption levels well below 10 kilograms per year."

https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets