Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

CO2 capture in the UK - explanation of the planned trials.
Just a reminder, but to prevent us exceeding +1.5C temp rise, and having less than a 2/3rds chance of avoiding runaway warming, we will need to reach zero (or net zero) CO2 emissions by 2050, and remove a vast amount of CO2 from the environment before 2100, to head off the rising temp.

Trials to suck carbon dioxide from the air to start across the UK

Climate-heating carbon dioxide will be sucked from the air using trees, peat, rock chips, and charcoal in major new trials across the UK.

Scientists said the past failure to rapidly cut emissions means some CO2 will need to be removed from the atmosphere to reach net zero by 2050 and halt the climate crisis. The £30m government-funded project will test ways to do this effectively and affordably on over 100 hectares (247 acres) of land, making it one of the biggest trials in the world.

Degraded peatlands will be re-wetted and replanted in the Pennines and west Wales, while rock chips that absorb CO2 as they break down in soil will be tested on farms in Devon, Hertfordshire and mid-Wales. Special charcoal called biochar will be buried at a sewage disposal site, on former mine sites and railway embankments.

Martyn1981

Jobs in off-shore RE, expected to overtake off-shore FF jobs by the end of this decade.

North Sea green energy could overtake oil and gas by 2030, says study

The UK’s half-century legacy as a leading offshore oil and gas hub will be eclipsed by the North Sea’s fast-growing green energy industry within the next decade, according to new research.

An academic study by the Robert Gordon University, based in the oil industry capital of Aberdeen in Scotland, has found that by 2030 most of the UK’s offshore energy jobs will be in the low carbon energy industry.

The research found that the number of green jobs off the UK’s coastlines is likely to climb from 20% of the country’s offshore energy sector to 65% by the end of the decade in a “significant change for the offshore energy industry”.

And British investments in FF's that have nearly twice the emissions of the UK. But it's OK, they are taking it seriously and will fix things by 2050 ...... promise to fix things by 2050.

British banks finance 805m tonnes of CO2 production a year

The amount of CO2 production financed by Britain’s banks and asset managers is nearly double the UK’s annual carbon emissions, according to a new report.

The study, published by environmental campaign groups Greenpeace and WWF, shows the City provided loans and investments for projects and companies that emitted 805m tonnes of CO2 in 2019. That is 1.8 times the UK’s own annual net emissions for the same year, which totalled 455m tonnes when discounting aviation and shipping, sectors that the UK government also does not include in its emissions calculations.

It highlights the financial industry as one of the UK’s largest contributors to the climate crisis, and means that if the City were its own country, it would outrank Germany as the ninth largest emitter of CO2 in the world. Germany was responsible for emitting 776m tonnes of carbon in 2018, according to the latest available data.

A spokesperson for the bank lobby group UK Finance said lenders took their “responsibility to wider society very seriously” and were taking a “leading role in the shift to net zero finance”. Last month, the UK’s six largest lenders committed to achieving net zero emissions from their portfolios by 2050 or sooner, as part of the UN’s new Net Zero Banking Alliance.

Martyn1981

Well, that's not good!

Poland defies EU court by refusing to close major brown coalmine

Poland’s government has defied an injunction by the top European Union court that ordered the immediate closure of a major brown coalmine, with officials saying it would shake the nation’s energy system and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs.

The EU wants at least 32% participation of renewable sources in the 27-nation bloc’s electricity generation by 2030, but Poland’s plan aims at 23% participation of green energy, and still up to 56% participation of coal in its energy mix.

Coal makes up 65% of Poland’s energy sources, including 17% from lignite, while about 25% of the country’s energy comes from renewable sources and biofuels. Another 10% comes from gas and other sources.

Poland’s continuing heavy reliance on coal is a source of tension in the EU, which is seeking to meet ambitious goals to reduce the bloc’s greenhouse gas emissions and stop global heating.

Martyn1981

Looking for something to make you smile over the bank holiday weekend, well here you go, but not just one, or even two, but three pieces of news, all of which are monumental body blows to the FF industry, or at least its hopes of doing as little as possible, for as long as possible:
[Same story, but two articles, and worth reading both.]

A Day Of Superlatives For Climate Advocates & Big Oil

Outlets and analysts used a variety of words and phrases to describe developments in the oil and gas sector yesterday, but the consensus was clear: rebel shareholders won breakthrough victories over Exxon and Chevron while a Dutch court wrecked Shell. (Some outlets were even more succinct.) All told, it was a breakthrough, no good, very bad, watershed day of reckoning for Big Oil and Gas. The shareholder wins over Exxon and Chevron show the increasing power of investment managers to force businesses and CEOs to pursue environmental and social goals, and the Dutch court’s decision could set a new precedent that oil companies must dramatically change in order to meet Paris Agreement pledges.

A Bad Day At Black Rock For Big Oil!

The Takeaway

This, folks, is how change happens. One minute, a snow covered mountain in the Alps is basking in the sun. The next, an avalanche is rolling downhill, sweeping away everything in its path. One minute the Old Man Of The Mountain is staring out across the state of New Hampshire the same way it did for thousands of years. Then in a blink of an eye, it’s gone.

Those of us here at CleanTechnica have been writing stories for more than a decade about cutting carbon emissions and wondering if anyone is actually paying any attention to our musings. Then WHAM! Wednesday, May 26 comes along and suddenly Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron are all getting a dressing down in public. It’s a beautiful sight to see and a sign that things may actually be changing for the better.

Edit - Might as well make it 3 articles on the 3x excellent news:

‘Cataclysmic day’ for oil companies sparks climate hope

A “cataclysmic day” for three major oil companies in which investors rebelled over climate fears and a court ordered fossil fuel emissions to be slashed has sparked hope among campaigners, investors, lawyers and academics who said the historic decisions marked a turning point in efforts to tackle the climate crisis.

Martyn1981

Create jobs, cut emissions, improve household quality, reduce bills ....... come on Tories, you know you want to.

Retrofitting leaky homes would cost £5bn over next four years, UK ministers told

Renovating the UK’s draughty homes to low-carbon standards would cost the government only £5bn within the next four years and would create 100,000 jobs, cut people’s energy bills, increase tax revenue and bring tens of billions in economic benefits, the construction industry has estimated.

Sector leaders have written to ministers proposing a new “national retrofit strategy” that they say would boost a green recovery in the UK and put Britain on track to meet its climate targets.

The proposal comes ahead of the government’s heat and buildings strategy, which is expected to be published soon. Decarbonising the UK’s homes, which are among the leakiest in Europe, and which produce nearly one-fifth of the UK’s carbon output, is a pressing issue as the government seeks cuts of 78% to greenhouse gas emissions by 2035.

Martyn1981

Not great news as the impacts of AGW are hitting the UK already.
I think an obvious aid, but not a solution, would be the use of a small A/C unit to keep one room cool, and if supported by PV, even better?

Heatwave deaths set to soar as UK summers become hotter

Britain is failing to protect its vulnerable citizens from the threat of intensifying heatwaves, health experts warned last week. Thousands of preventable deaths could be triggered every year because simple measures to keep houses and care homes cool have not been implemented.
As global heating worsens and heatwaves become more frequent, the problem is likely to worsen significantly – unless urgent action is taken, they say. Those most likely to suffer include the very young, the elderly and people suffering from chronic conditions such as asthma.
Last week, the Met Office revealed there was now a more than 40% chance the annual average global temperature will reach 1.5C above pre-industrial levels at some time in the next five years as greenhouse gas emissions from factories, power plants and cars continue unabated.
“A very high proportion of existing homes already overheat in a normal summer, never mind ones like the summer of 2018 when around 2,500 deaths were caused by that year’s heatwave,” said Julia King, a member of the UK Committee on Climate Change (CCC). “There’s now a real prospect we’ll have more and more of these events but we are not doing anything like enough to tackle the threat.”

Martyn1981

Just an update on the recent incredibly great news that FF giants are being held responsible for some of the harm they have/are causing. And new cases working through the courts. This news couldn't be bigger, it's akin to when 'Big Tobacco' started to lose cases.

Shell’s historic loss in The Hague is a turning point in the fight against big oil

The oil giants that have helped drive the climate crisis are finally being forced to take responsibility for their actions

On a rainy afternoon in The Hague, the district court delivered a judgment against Royal Dutch Shell, the parent company of the Shell group. It refuted the excuses regularly relied on to continue extracting oil and gas and vindicated longstanding calls to keep fossil fuels in the ground. The court held that Shell’s current policy of merely reducing the “carbon intensity” of its products by 20% by 2030, and aiming to reach net zero by 2050, would contribute to climate impacts that endanger the human rights of the plaintiffs.

The extraordinary events preceding the oil industry’s so-called Black Wednesday bring to mind the proverbial path to bankruptcy: it happens gradually, and then all at once. Hot on the heels of a landmark report by the global energy body the International Energy Agency warning against new fossil fuel production, Wednesday’s historic ruling has blown another hole in the defences of an industry that has overwhelmingly failed to accept responsibility for driving the climate emergency.

The decision marks several legal firsts with global implications. It is the first time that a court has found that a company has a legal duty to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement. It is also the first time that international human rights standards have been used to inform a binding emissions-reduction obligation for a company.

A lawsuit in France against oil major Total is likely to be the next case in which a company’s climate policy is tested against binding human rights standards. Dozens of cases seeking compensation from fossil fuel companies for climate impacts are already playing out in US courts, and a recent case in the UK exposed the public subsidies received by oil and gas producers. While Shell has indicated it will appeal against the district court’s decision, there is no guarantee it will succeed – as the Dutch government learned when it lost twice on appeal in another landmark climate case.

No discussion of the case should omit the fearlessness and perseverance of the plaintiffs and their lawyers, led by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), a cohort of other Dutch NGOs, and more than 17,000 individual co-plaintiffs. To take on one of the world’s richest, most powerful companies in court is brave in any circumstances. To do so when the arguments you are making are unprecedented is extraordinary. That courage has paid off in ways that may change the course of history.

Martyn1981

And now some good / bad news regarding CO2(e) emissions.

EU progress against targets is going well, but with the 'easier' wins of eliminating coal losing steam, we now need to move quickly on transport and other issues.

EU’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by nearly 4% in 2019, data shows

The EU’s greenhouse gas emissions fell by nearly 4% in 2019, data from Europe’s environmental watchdog has shown, as countries met online for the first time in UN climate negotiations.

The fall of 3.8% for EU member states in 2019 brought EU emissions to 24% below 1990 levels – or 26% if carbon sinks are taken into account – according to the European Environment Agency.

The EU’s target is for a 55% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared with 1990 levels and including carbon sinks, so if similar cuts can be continued for the next decade then the bloc is likely to meet its goals. The UK has its own targets, of a 68% reduction in emissions by 2030 and a 78% cut by 2035.

The EEA said about 80% of the EU’s reduction in emissions in 2019 was from the heat and power sector. But the EU’s emissions from transport have continued to rise, meaning new policies and investment are likely to be needed to meet the bloc’s future emissions targets.

Perhaps we should have been shouting about the current impacts of AGW more, since 'future harm' is something that we humans are extremely adept at ignoring.

Human-induced global heating ‘causes over a third of heat deaths’

More than a third of all heat-related deaths around the world between 1991 and 2018 can be attributed to human-induced global heating, research has found.

Climate breakdown has a range of effects ranging from wildfires to extreme weather. As the temperatures rise, more intense and frequent heatwaves disproportionately affect elderly people and those with underlying chronic conditions such as asthma, making them more vulnerable to disease and premature death.

A study, published in the journal Nature Climate Change, used data from 732 locations in 43 countries to calculate the number of deaths attributed to heat levels higher than the ideal temperature for human health, which varies across locations.

michaels

Martyn1981 said:

Just an update on the recent incredibly great news that FF giants are being held responsible for some of the harm they have/are causing. And new cases working through the courts. This news couldn't be bigger, it's akin to when 'Big Tobacco' started to lose cases.

Shell’s historic loss in The Hague is a turning point in the fight against big oil

The oil giants that have helped drive the climate crisis are finally being forced to take responsibility for their actions

On a rainy afternoon in The Hague, the district court delivered a judgment against Royal Dutch Shell, the parent company of the Shell group. It refuted the excuses regularly relied on to continue extracting oil and gas and vindicated longstanding calls to keep fossil fuels in the ground. The court held that Shell’s current policy of merely reducing the “carbon intensity” of its products by 20% by 2030, and aiming to reach net zero by 2050, would contribute to climate impacts that endanger the human rights of the plaintiffs.

The extraordinary events preceding the oil industry’s so-called Black Wednesday bring to mind the proverbial path to bankruptcy: it happens gradually, and then all at once. Hot on the heels of a landmark report by the global energy body the International Energy Agency warning against new fossil fuel production, Wednesday’s historic ruling has blown another hole in the defences of an industry that has overwhelmingly failed to accept responsibility for driving the climate emergency.

The decision marks several legal firsts with global implications. It is the first time that a court has found that a company has a legal duty to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions in line with the goals of the Paris climate agreement. It is also the first time that international human rights standards have been used to inform a binding emissions-reduction obligation for a company.

A lawsuit in France against oil major Total is likely to be the next case in which a company’s climate policy is tested against binding human rights standards. Dozens of cases seeking compensation from fossil fuel companies for climate impacts are already playing out in US courts, and a recent case in the UK exposed the public subsidies received by oil and gas producers. While Shell has indicated it will appeal against the district court’s decision, there is no guarantee it will succeed – as the Dutch government learned when it lost twice on appeal in another landmark climate case.

No discussion of the case should omit the fearlessness and perseverance of the plaintiffs and their lawyers, led by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), a cohort of other Dutch NGOs, and more than 17,000 individual co-plaintiffs. To take on one of the world’s richest, most powerful companies in court is brave in any circumstances. To do so when the arguments you are making are unprecedented is extraordinary. That courage has paid off in ways that may change the course of history.

Apologies as this is not really the thread for it but if we were to go 'cold turkey' on fossil fuels then there would be a lot of death short term.  It is easy for the courts to rule something is not long term compatible with climate change policy but there are also short term issues that may also be negative to people's health.  Perhaps someone who is priced out of keeping their warm sufficiently warm due to climate change policies could also sue Shell?  Shell are an energy supply company, if the only way they can meet climate commitments is by supplying less energy then there will be less energy to consume (and thus higher prices to reduce demand to meet supply), there are not alternatives just waiting to be tapped in the short term - even solar and wind take time to roll out.

Martyn1981

Item on blimps, which come up every now and then. This one focus' on short range air travel, but if I remember corectly, they may be better suited to very heavy lifting, and awkward locations, such as wind farm construction. 

Blimps May Be The Key To Low-Carbon Short-Range Air Travel

According to The Guardian, Hybrid Air Vehicles, located in Bedford, UK, wants to change all that by ferrying people between cities that are 200 to 300 miles apart using its Airlander 10 lighter-than-air blimp. Here are a few reasons a blimp might actually be a serious alternative to travelling by jet. First, it can take off and land from virtually any flat piece of land. No more long drives to airports located 20 miles or more outside major cities.

Even though the Airlander 10 only wafts along at a top speed of about 60 miles per hour, when you subtract the time needed to get to and from airports, the total time needed to go from Seattle to Vancouver, Oslo to Stockholm, or Liverpool to Belfast will be about the same as a journey aboard a commercial jetliner. And if the artist’s renderings of the Airlander 10 interior are to be believed, passengers will travel in much greater comfort than is possible with today’s flying cattle cars that measure legroom in Ângström units.