Former and hopefully future climate and poverty activist. Covid cautious. Autistic grey-ace/wtf-ro geek, software developer. Interested in green transition, green tech, activism, intersectionality, etc. I try to boost other marginalised voices while recognising my own privilege. Yorkshire, Remainer. Climate hawk on the pro-tech end: We need appropriate technology. Recently re-created this account after leaving for a while during an anxious period of unemployment.
This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.
Here is a somewhat comical but also highly indignant commentary about the folly of “Net Zero by 2050”…
We insiders — by which I mean anyone paying attention — know that the plan to mitigate the climate catastrophe with Net Zero by 2050 is complete bullshit. But maybe you’ve absorbed that knowledge without really understanding why. So let’s talk about it.
What does Net Zero actually mean? Net Zero is the point at which the CO2 burden in the atmosphere is no longer increasing. We’re still putting some up, but we’re also taking just as much out.
This definition immediately tips off two major problems.
The “still putting some up” part is a major issue because the fossil fuels industrial/political complex hears that and stops listening. The “still putting some up” part is their job, and somebody else can do the “take just as much out” part.
In other words, it's Business As Usual for fossil fuels, including continuing growth. Someone else can do the preserving-life-and-the-climate part.
The second obvious problem with Net Zero is the very idea of “taking just as much CO2 out of the atmosphere each year as the fossil fuel industry is adding to it each year.” We know of only two ways to reduce the CO2 load of the atmosphere. One is time. But CO2 stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years, so time is not on our side.
The other way to reduce CO2 is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Carbon is “captured” from the atmosphere using a chemical solvent that absorbs CO2, after which it can be buried in the ground where the CO2 will stay safely out of the atmosphere virtually forever.
CCS technology both does and does not exist.
CCS does exist in that there are many ingenious systems for doing it, including several pilot programs demonstrating direct air capture, the holy grail of CCS. Many fossil fuelled electricity generation plants have been removing CO2 from their smokestack emissions for decades. Unfortunately, much of the currently captured CO2 is being injected into played-out oil wells, forcing more of the remaining oil to be recoverable, to burn as fuel. Totally self-defeating, as far as reducing the CO2 load in the atmosphere.
But CCS also does NOT exist in terms of a significant contributor to Net Zero. They remove so little CO2 from the atmosphere, and at such a cost, as to make them completely impractical. To make a dent in carbon emissions, hundreds of thousands of CCS plants are needed, if not millions. The cost is prohibitive. Not to mention the carbon costs of manufacturing all those plants.
But surely CCS technology will improve over the next decade or two. Maybe someone will even find a miraculous breakthrough that will make it truly practical?
Sorry, but no. It’s not that there hasn’t been enough research into CCS. It has been heavily researched and the science is known. It’s actually some pretty simple chemistry. We can tweak around the efficiency edges, but there are no breakthroughs waiting in the wings to be discovered.
So it looks like we're not going to get external solid wall insulation any time soon. Nor a heat pump.
Not because of the money but because of family issues around the disruption involved, mostly related to various disabilities.
It appears that even solid wall insulation requires us to evacuate the house for several days, because of the need to disconnect external plumbing. And yes, moving the whole family out for a few days is a big deal with our particular set of issues. We haven't gone on holiday together for decades. And there are other difficulties.
Possibly it makes sense to wait and do a heat pump at the same time, to minimise the number of moves.
System change is more important than consumer choices. Nonetheless this is disappointing. It's tricky for me to get involved in in-person activism, because of Covid-vulnerable family, and to some degree because of not having settled in my new job yet.
Sorting out at least insulation, and possibly a heat pump and solar, had been my project for the next few years. Living with my parents and a software job meant I actually have money, in spite of autism (only 16% of autistic adults have full time work).
Maybe my best option is to move out. That would make it easier to participate in in-person activism, and easier to socialise in general, but it would mean spending less time with family. It would also mean I can't give as much.
And of course renting would mean burning even more fossil fuels than my existence does now. Buying is problematic, with recent unemployment, and a falling market, and in the long run, I'd be much too worried about negative equity to have any spare money to give to anything. On the other hand I would eventually be able to install upgrades.
Yesterday I attended a protest, for the first time in years, largely in an FFP3 or P100 mask. Vulnerable family matter.
Maybe the Effective Altruism people have it right for once, even though in general they are a bunch of sophists infiltrated by climate deniers. In some cases giving is actually more important than boots on the ground.
Of course I'll have to move out one day. Mum and dad won't be around forever, and there's an argument that if something happens to my current job (which is unlikely but certainly not impossible), job hunting will be easier if I live closer to civilization and can safely attend in-person interviews.
If you think a key to dealing with the #climatecrisis is a swift move away from #coal for power generation, then you will be rightly worried that both India & China are increasing their use of coal whatever their other #green commitments....
Once again political elites are saying one thing but doing another....
As the chart indicates; also whatever other countries do, if China doesn't move away from coal we'll never transit away from it
Didn’t seem like any big surprises at Apple's event today. Honestly, my biggest takeaway is that it was the worst presentation Apple has done in a long time. Yet another "you will die in a car crash without our products” segment, coupled with a whole lot of greenwashing.
Anyway, I’ll be pre-ordering the base iPhone 15 because I want USB-C and the screen on my SE is now too small for most apps and websites. I will miss small phones. #AppleEvent
Every headline seems to be meant to push an agenda more than to provide actual illumination on the situation. Perhaps, it's always been that way, but it seems worse today to me.
Anyways, every ton of pollution we manage to not emit makes our planet better off.
Another day, another "controversial" toot from me of course. #ClimateSolutions
However, if we don’t invest effort & resources into addressing DAC’s technical challenges this decade it won’t be ready at scale when we need it.
This latest paper in Royal Society of Chemistry's Energy and Environmental Science Journal provides a roadmap: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/ee/d3ee01008b
A. Wikipedia bars paid work on behalf of people or organizations getting entries added or modified. B. If you can’t match the font in your email to prevent it looking like an old mail merge, I can’t trust you.
The largest externalities (“implicit subsidies” to the IMF) associated with transport fuels relate to driving — traffic congestion, traffic accidents, & road wear and tear — and they would still be around with EVs. 👀
We need transit and bike infrastructure.
You may want to take a seat on the fainting couch before reading this, because I regret to inform you that . . . oil companies are LYING to us!!
A new analysis of the activities of twelve major fossil fuel giants shows that the companies are misleading the public about their emission-reduction commitments while raking in record profits from fossil fuels, which are driving catastrophic extreme weather events across the globe.
In a report published Wednesday, Greenpeace examines the decarbonization pledges, investments, and profits of six global fossil fuel giants — including Shell, BP, and TotalEnergies — and six European oil companies.
The results indicate that in 2022 close to 93% of the oil giants' investments on average went to keeping the companies on the "fossil oil and gas path" while just 7.3% were aimed at promoting "low-carbon solutions" and sustainable production.
Kuba Gogolewski, a finance campaigner at Greenpeace, said that "as the world endures unprecedented heat waves, deadly floods, and escalating storms, Big Oil clings to its destructive business model and continues to fuel the climate crisis."
"Instead of providing desperately needed clean energy, they feed us greenwashing garbage," Gogolewski added. "Big Oil's unwillingness to implement real change is a crime against the climate and future generations. Governments need to stop enabling fossil fuel companies, heavily regulate them, and plan our fossil fuel phase-out now. They will never change on their own."
Yes, that is the point. They will never change on their own.
FULL STORY -- https://www.commondreams.org/news/oil-company-emissions
#Battery technology doesn’t seem to have evolved much in the last decade, at least at the consumer level. I was hoping that by now, phones that last several days on a single charge would be ubiquitous.
Climate change means, among other things, that we can’t take anything for granted any longer. There is no normal now.
Used to be we would talk about how important it is to keep our tropical forests and other areas of vegetation intact, because they act as carbon sinks, absorbing CO2 from the air during photosynthesis.
But even this — one of the most basic science facts we learned in high school biology — is now in jeopardy.
"Parts of tropical rainforests could get too hot for photosynthesis, study suggests"