Impressed £67.5 billion... nope... 263 billion, and rising.

[Embattle]

Pushing renewable power immediately could save trillions in health costs

An updated analysis with new health statistics shows the benefits are immediate.

arstechnica.com

 

[Scouse]

Window dressing:

COP26: US to tackle methane leaks from oil and gas wells

The Biden administration plans to restore tough rules curbing one of the most potent greenhouse gases.

www.bbc.co.uk

When you look at their pledges look what year they're going to slash them from.

E.G. 30% cut from 1990 levels.

These are cuts from 2020 levels - and the 2020 levels are massively higher than earlier levels (in terms of absolute numbers in the atmosphere and the amount of emissions ongoing - we emitted far less in 1990 than we do today - so a cut from today's levels is a bit shit, but a cut from 1990 levels (which was the original baseline we were supposed to be working from) is much better.

I'm not really impressed at the moment. Neither with the announcements coming out, the no-shows and, frankly, the commitment to action. It's all a bit "blah blah blah" for me.

 

[Gwadien]

All I'm hearing are dates and promises.

But it was always expected though, not only because they're all a bunch of cunts, but also because Biden can't get support for his green bill.

We're fucked.

 

[MYstIC G]

View: https://youtu.be/QIyKmqEdgR4

 

[Scouse]

Indonesia backing out of a pledge they signed a few days ago...

Indonesia says Cop26 zero-deforestation pledge it signed ‘unfair’

Environment minister of country home to world’s third-biggest rainforest says deforestation pledge must not halt development

www.theguardian.com

 

[Raven]

ofc they are, they have had their holiday snaps developed now. They will look great on the website, proper 21st century statesmanship.

 

[Scouse]

Banks are still financing fossil fuels - while signing up to net zero pledges | Mariana Mazzucato

The financial sector is helping to drive the climate crisis. Radical government action is needed to overhaul the system, says economics professor Mariana Mazzucato

www.theguardian.com

"An astonishing 56% of the G20 nations’ Covid-19 recovery funds for energy have gone to fossil fuel companies"

 

[Gwadien]

COP26: Greta Thunberg tells protest that COP26 has been a 'failure'

The Swedish activist was speaking after thousands of climate protestors marched through Glasgow.

www.bbc.co.uk

and she be the correct.

 

[Scouse]

Farmers don’t have to contribute to the environmental crisis – we can solve it | Jyoti Fernandes

As a farmer I produce meat and cheese from animals that graze in my orchard on diverse, carbon-sequestering grasslands, says Dorset farmer Jyoti Fernandes

www.theguardian.com

 

[Scouse]

Looks like the Democrats are as anti,science as the Trumpistas.

Americans can eat meat while cutting global heating, says agriculture secretary

Thomas Vilsack says US does not ‘have to reduce the amount of meat or livestock produced’ to tackle climate crisis

www.theguardian.com

It's one of the least efficient land-pressuring protein production processes.

Dem's are totally captured by big agriculture - and they're supposed to be "different"?

They're just somewhere else on the sliding scale of shit.

 

[Gwadien]

Looks like the Democrats are as anti,science as the Trumpistas.

Americans can eat meat while cutting global heating, says agriculture secretary

Thomas Vilsack says US does not ‘have to reduce the amount of meat or livestock produced’ to tackle climate crisis

www.theguardian.com

It's one of the least efficient land-pressuring protein production processes.

Dem's are totally captured by big agriculture - and they're supposed to be "different"?

They're just somewhere else on the sliding scale of shit.

Doesn't this apply for -everyone- in the world though?

I mean India have a Hindu government and they're one of the biggest exporters of cows in the world...

 

[Embattle]

It’s Time to Delete Carbon From the Atmosphere. But How?

It’s not enough to drastically slash emissions. To stave off the worst of climate change, humanity needs to capture the carbon that's already in the air.

www.wired.com

 

[Scouse]

It’s Time to Delete Carbon From the Atmosphere. But How?

It’s not enough to drastically slash emissions. To stave off the worst of climate change, humanity needs to capture the carbon that's already in the air.

www.wired.com

Tree planting and reforestation.

All the land that's been stupidly cleared to make cereal crops for animal feed could be reforested. Over the centuries it could get back some of it's lost biodiversity instead of being barren farmed forest.

Meanwhile we should eat less beef, lamb and pork and the cattle we raise should exclusively graze on mixed-use land (grass and orchard) which gives rise to much less methane emissions and higher quality flavour (because they move and actually use their muscles, rather than being in feed lots).

Big farming and the politicians they own are dead against this.

Edit:

"The reality is that we didn't do what we should have done 30 years ago, which is to reduce our emissions back then enough so that we wouldn't be in the situation where we are today"

That's goimg to be the clarion call of geoengineers - who, to a man, should be shot.

Fix diet and agriculture, reforest. Cheapest most effective method of removing carbon from the atmosphere.

 

[Embattle]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYSLyvbR_1w

 

[Raven]

Sums up the hypocrisy quite nicely.

 

[Scouse]

Climate change: Fridge doors could save 1% of UK electricity use

Research shows adding doors to supermarket fridges could save 1% of the UK's total electricity use.

www.bbc.co.uk

The UK could cut its total electricity usage by 1% if the top five British supermarkets put doors on fridges

Aldi has pledged to put fridge doors in all of its new UK stores, saving 2,000 tonnes of carbon a year.
Other supermarkets say they will try to make open fridges more efficient.

CEO's of "other" supermarkets should have their children shot for not having done this already tbh.

If we can't rely on the private sector to do even the obvious stuff by themselves then we need legislation.

Unfortunately we won't get it.

 

[Raven]

All the COOPs round here already have doors on their fridges, except for the milk and lunch areas. Would have no idea about anyone else, one gets their shopping online. *sniff*

 

[Embattle]

The local Morrison's has doors on the fridges, except for milk.

 

[Embattle]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWV4e453y8Y

 

[Scouse]

A measure of sucess for me would be their measured exclusion from the talks, as "it is very hard to make a man understand a point if his continued income depends on him not understanding it" and "turkeys don't vote for christmas".

COP26: Fossil fuel industry has largest delegation at climate summit

There are more participants than from any single country, a study shared with the BBC suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Embattle]

I wouldn't agree with excluding them totally, but I would certainly like to see their numbers curtailed.

 

[Scouse]

I wouldn't agree with excluding them totally,

Theconly contribution they have to make is an obstructive one.

We should be deciding what to do free of their influence and then coming out and telling them what their future is.

It's like inviting paedophiles to a child protection conference.

Edit: Apart from paedophiles only fuck kids, not the planet.

 

[Wij]

Small scale nuclear to get green light this week

Plans for a generation of new smaller nuclear reactors will become more concrete this week.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Small scale nuclear to get green light this week

Plans for a generation of new smaller nuclear reactors will become more concrete this week.

www.bbc.co.uk

Read this earlier and was going to post it.

10 years time, 2bn a reactor. (So, from their own figures really not great considering power output, expense and time to market (but we should continue, of course)).

However, lets be honest given all of the history of the nuclear idustry - it'll be 15 years time, and 4.5bn/reactor. So even later and more expensive.

Add to that - are we going to be building at scale?

Lets face it - no. No we're not.

It's just another white elephant.

 

[Raven]

That's great...but what do you feel about people banking on bitcoin, a hideous, polluting "thing" (regardless of the tech behind it and whether or not it has unspecified benefits) Blood on your hands? What benefit is there in using huge amounts of energy to create a few lines of code that can be exchanged for cash? You are literally converting energy (often produced shadily, hi China!) into cash.

You seem to be quite emotional about things that other people do, what are you doing?

 

[Scouse]

You drinking last night @Raven?

 

[Raven]

I am virtually teetotal, so that would surprise me but please to answering the question.

 

[Scouse]

I am virtually teetotal, so that would surprise me but please to answering the question.

Well, going from me pointing out global problems (especially around mythical unicorn technologies that the proponet's of which own timeline shows their irrelevance (in the short term)) to "what are you personally doing to fix the world Scouse, you cunt" smacks a bit angry

I've stated in detail before the steps I've taken and have taken/am taking in my personal life (at personal cost) - not just about energy use but environmental and biodiversity enhancements.

But you've a specific beef with cryptos that you clearly don't understand properly.

My position on cryptos generally is that they have potentially to be societally transformative and a huge environmental net positive because of what they have potential to replace. The carbon accounting side is easy to track and issues easy to remediate - even for the current poster-boy of bad energy use crypto Bitcoin.

And having come off the back of a full day's crypto and blockchain event, including regulatory plans of adoption by central banks, presentation by peer-banks and research universities it's very clear that they're here to stay.

That's because people who understand money, who understand cross-border payments, settlements, transformation of supply chain logistics etc etc etc - can see the global transformational benefts - including energy saving benefits.

As a society we need to ditch our regressive ways of working that hold us back, mired in dirty, polluting industrial age - and move into the information era. This is the natural (and sensible) movement of human progress. But change doesn't come without a fight - so the "old guard" are kicking hard against the new and spreading misinformation hard, cherry picking what the public sees and not giving full, true, comparison-accounting.

So yep. I think crypto has the potential to save us a fuckton of carbon emissions, whilst at the same time changing the face of the earth beyond what we've seen with the internet so far.

Me being "against" that, given that I want to do the very best for the environment in both the short and long term, would not be a position based in reason, but one based on bullshit.

I dearly hope crypto puts me and millions of people like me out of a job. We're expensive, we pump out carbon like it's going out of fashion, we consume natural resources at a massive rate, we own buildings across the planet and entire transport systems are setup to move me and people like me to the office (have you ever been to the city of london at commuter time? that's a global phenomenon - a scene repeated in city centres across the world) and we infest the world like a rash.

Huge swathes of our financial services industries, the people (and their laptops and screens), the technology systems built up around it, the energy and resource use, transportation etc etc etc - fuckloads of that can be replaced by more efficient, faster processes, as we digitise our world.

I'd need to see a pretty strong argument why crypto and blockchain should be held back (it won't by the way, that's just a luddite fantasy) given what we stand to gain across the board.

It'd have to be much better than "duh, bitcoin uses energy"...

 

[Embattle]

Lets cut the bullshit since as it stands bitcoin is largely worthless except in terms of speculation, it's environmental footprint is huge which becomes even worse when you compare it to the alternatives and that those alternatives can actually be used everywhere.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFrFsAAzRYg


I'm not interested in getting into a long reply war since we've covered it's issues before and what I've stated are the facts of bitcoin as it stands today and will probably remain so for some time to come.

 

[Scouse]

Not sure what your adding with that "duh, bitcoin uses energy" argument @Embattle.

We all know and acknowledge the problems with BTC and we can easily solve them if we have political will.

But there are currently 6000-odd cryptos vying for technological supremacy and adoption. My post above describes what we have to gain - including a lot of environmental benefits.

I was asked to state my position on cryptos - and I have done. Nowt more to add from me tbh.

If for a second I thought they were going to worsen our environmental position I'd be against them as a concept, but they're part of a solution and very much part of humanity's future. So I'm for them.