1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Greta Thunberg

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by rubberduck, 24 Sep 2019.

Tags:
  1. 200sols

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 14 Jan 2018

    Posts: 9,145

    Location: Hampshire

    Guess what, when the wind speed drops what happens to output? You've even had articles linked on what happened just recently when the wind stopped blowing.
     
  2. dod

    Mobster

    Joined: 31 Oct 2002

    Posts: 3,928

    Location: Inverness

    there are a couple that have been operational for years, Cruachan and Foyers
     
  3. UTmaniac

    Soldato

    Joined: 9 Nov 2005

    Posts: 6,751

    Location: Southampton

    From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59063816
    • Flights between airports in the UK nations will be subject to a new lower rate of Air Passenger Duty from April 2023
    • The planned rise in fuel duty will be cancelled

    World beating climate change measures announced by Sunak. :rolleyes:
     
  4. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Jul 2007

    Posts: 23,807

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    I already did pages back....oh dear
     
  5. 200sols

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 14 Jan 2018

    Posts: 9,145

    Location: Hampshire

    No you didn't. Your initial claim was instantly debunked and then you posted a rant about charities.
     
  6. Smokey Deza

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 11 Feb 2011

    Posts: 1,881

    Weirdo.
     
  7. 4K8KW10

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2017

    Posts: 10,307

    "Charity says lower income countries handing over billions of dollars in debt is impeding their ability to tackle crisis

    Lower income countries spend five times more on debt than coping with the impact of climate change and reducing carbon emissions, according to a leading anti poverty charity.

    Figures from Jubilee Debt Campaign show that 34 of the world’s poorest countries are spending $29.4bn (£21.4bn) on debt payments a year compared with $5.4bn (£3.9bn) on measures to reduce the impact of the climate emergency.

    “In Glasgow, wealthy polluting nations need to stop shirking their responsibilities and provide climate finance through grants, as well as cancel debts.”"

    Poorer countries spend five times more on debt than climate crisis – report | Climate crisis | The Guardian
     
  8. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Jul 2007

    Posts: 23,807

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    It's widely reported she is worth a cool $ million after everything.
    And you do know that when you give cash to a charity, one gets a tax allowance.

    Who ever is looking after her cash is doing a good job.
     
  9. deuse

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Jul 2007

    Posts: 23,807

    Location: Solihull-Florida


    What do you think we should do about this debt?
     
  10. 4K8KW10

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2017

    Posts: 10,307

    Good vs evil:

    Oil companies downplay early climate knowledge under fire from Dems (msn.com)

    "Leaders of the U.S. oil industry refused to concede that their companies had ever misled the public about the link between burning fossil fuels and global warming during a tense House hearing on Thursday.

    The hearing before the House Oversight and Reform Committee was billed as "Fueling the Climate Crisis: Exposing Big Oil's Disinformation Campaign to Prevent Climate Action," and Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) set the tone early.

    "I want each of you to affirm that your organization will no longer spend any money either directly or indirectly to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and address climate change," she said.

    The executives did not directly say they would do so, and Maloney accused one of them of filibustering. She soon moved on after declaring none of them were willing to take her "pledge."

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), chair of the House Oversight Committee's environmental subcommittee, repeatedly pressed Exxon CEO Darren Woods on statements by then-CEO Lee Raymond in 2002, in which he denied a link between fossil fuel combustion and climate change.

    These comments, Khanna noted, came decades after 1978 internal reports from Exxon scientists warning of such a link.

    While Woods acknowledged the connection between burning fossil fuels and warmer temperatures, he maintained Raymond's comments had been consistent with then-current science despite the internal research.

    Meanwhile, he also claimed that the company didn't have any "unique" understanding of climate science.

    "I am not aware of any unique understanding that we had on the science. We engaged with the broader community and worked with them to advance our own understanding and as time passed and scientific understanding evolved, so did our position," he said.

    Numerous ongoing lawsuits and news reports have alleged that the companies knew about climate change for decades, but took a contrary position in public.

    BP America Chairman David Lawler stated that his company was aware as early as the 1980s of reports of climate change, but said there was "debate."

    "There was a lot of science, there was a lot of debate that was published during that time period, but I would say that BP focused on the landmark IPCC study in 1996," Lawler said, referring to the United Nations's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    The BP and Exxon executives testified alongside top brass from Shell, Chevron and key lobbying groups the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the Chamber of Commerce.

    Maloney announced at the end of the hearing that she would be issuing subpoenas to the oil interests, which she said failed to provide requested financial documents and internal communications.

    Oil company executives to testify on climate change
    "I do not take this step lightly," she said. "We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry's disinformation campaign, and with these subpoenas, we will."

    Speaking with reporters during a recess, Khanna said that future hearings remain on the table, with potentially expanded witness lists, including social media executives whose platforms may have spread climate disinformation.

    Khanna also addressed Woods declining to address the statements from his predecessor denying fossil fuels' role in climate change.

    "I'm surprised he chose to defend that statement as consistent with the science," Khanna said. "I don't see how you say that was consistent with the science that Exxon had."

    Asked if Woods had lied under oath, Khanna responded, "He's going to have to explain ... because Raymond's comment is directly in contradiction with the 1978 report."

    The Hill has reached out to Exxon for comment.

    During the hearing, Democrats also sought to get the executives to make commitments to leave API, a key trade group, over issues including its resistance to electrifying the United States vehicle fleet.

    "Would any of you take the opportunity to look at API and say stop it? Any of you?" Khanna asked.

    "What I'll commit to is continuing to be an active member of the API," said Shell President Gretchen Watkins, noting that "many" issues are discussed within the group.

    The lawmakers repeatedly sought to compare the hearing to a 1994 examination of tobacco executives. But a major difference was that in this case the companies now acknowledge the impacts that burning fossil fuels have on climate change, while in 1994, executives denied that cigarettes were addictive.

    Democrats also attempted to highlight the differences between companies' rhetoric and actions on climate change, honing in on the lobbying priorities of the companies and trade groups.

    The committee released an analysis finding that the four companies and the American Petroleum Institute reported 4,597 instances of lobbying since 2015, but only eight instances of lobbying on the Paris Climate Agreement, compared to hundreds of instances related to corporate tax breaks.

    Their analysis also found that relatively little of the companies' overall spending was on low carbon investments, alleging that from 2010 to 2018, Exxon invested just 0.22 percent of its capital expenditures on low carbon projects, while BP devoted 2.3 percent.

    In response, an API spokesperson said that the memo is "false," highlighting the company's lobbying on hydrogen, carbon capture and carbon pricing - though some Democrats have expressed skepticism about whether hydrogen and carbon capture are effective solutions.

    "Since we released our Climate Action Framework earlier this year, we've consistently advocated for carbon pricing as the most impactful way to reduce emissions and a better approach to the punitive new taxes and restrictions on energy proposed as part of reconciliation," said spokesperson Bethany Aronhalt in an email.

    Meanwhile, Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) sought to represent the relative size of Shell's spending on renewables visually - using two jars of M&Ms to contrast with the company's outsized spending on other, non-renewable operations.

    The committee's Republican minority, meanwhile, had few questions for the witnesses on climate change, but accused the majority of attempting to intimidate the executives, tying what they called the Biden administration's hostility to fossil fuels to rising energy prices.

    Rep. Virginia Fox (R-N.C.), took her time during the hearing to criticize the Biden administration for canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and what she described as "discouraging" domestic oil exploration.

    "The title of this hearing suggests that 'big oil' is running a disinformation campaign designed to prevent action on the climate," she said. "However, it's clear that this hearing is part of a Democrat-led disinformation campaign to distract from the Biden administration's failed policies that are hurting average Americans."

    The sole Republican witness was Neil Crabtree, a welder who lost his job on the canceled Keystone XL pipeline and has been a vocal critic of the Biden administration."

     
    Last edited by a moderator: 29 Oct 2021
  11. 200sols

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 14 Jan 2018

    Posts: 9,145

    Location: Hampshire

    Simply dropping an entire paste from an article should be banned. Drop a link and post your thoughts if its really worthwhile news.
     
  12. 4K8KW10

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Sep 2017

    Posts: 10,307

    You have to read it here. I cannot be sure that you will click on the link, so just in case :D

    If it's posted here, then your priority is to read it because it's important.

    If there are no "thoughts" from me, then I have no additional comments on the content besides the content itself which explains everything.
     
  13. 200sols

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 14 Jan 2018

    Posts: 9,145

    Location: Hampshire

    Only if I click 'see ignored content' to see what you've posted :cry::cry:
     
  14. Stumble Bum

    Mobster

    Joined: 2 Apr 2009

    Posts: 3,519

    Location: Location, Location!

    Yeah no-one can be bothered to read your constant boring RSS feed. You're just spamming without adding any input. Pointless.
     
  15. jpaul

    Capodecina

    Joined: 1 Mar 2010

    Posts: 15,555

    ( After discovering copy paste function, in the next life he'll discover the spoiler tag to hide the text ... and others will discover image resizing - nirvana. )

    Pope's not going to COP either (no dedicated thread on cop ?) .. it's a typical party, your friends aren't going, so you say why bother.

    BBC programme on CO2 recovery and burial plant in Iceland (using geo energy) you can pay 1e for 1Kg of CO2,
    which seems to mean those children who are pursuading parents, or Greta, to buy premium products (eg fancy non-dairy low carbon milks) could just continue with dairy and buy the appropriate number of carbon units, or, the dairy producers could offer that offset version on the shelves, pay at the till.
    People consuming such low carbon food-stuffs must wonder whether those company shareholders raking in dividends, themselves have a low carbon life style.
     
  16. Jokester

    Don

    Joined: 7 Aug 2003

    Posts: 42,456

    Location: Aberdeenshire

    Yes, technology based solutions to remove CO2 from the atmosphere offer a reasonable means of meeting climate change goals. Not all environmentalists like that though, capitalism and all that.
     
  17. jpaul

    Capodecina

    Joined: 1 Mar 2010

    Posts: 15,555

    Good BBC programme

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pft7f/storyville-the-age-of-stupid
    (offsets wasted carbon on other bbc output , who, strictly ...)

    juxtaposition of many climate influencing events and consequences, from future perspective of lone survivor reviewing arc database of human extinction,
    reborn oil exec, nimbies in UK, Indian easy-jet startup, aspirational consumers ...
     
  18. Phixsator

    Mobster

    Joined: 10 Oct 2012

    Posts: 4,044

    Problem with windmills is plenty. You cannot control the output( You need more power? too bad, better hope for stronger winds soon). Storage of excess energy in high production periods includes either CO2 costly batteries or highly inefficient alternatives. On top of all this the blades from the windmills cannot be recycled efficiently so they usually end up in landfills buried while cut into smaller chunks and to make it even worse the transportation of these chunks are also costly due to their size. Area cost per megawatt also not impressive due to spacing requirements.

    To me personally the much better alternative would be nuclear power, thorium to be specific or alternatives if research can provide it. Problem is that here in Denmark we have a law that bans the use of it but also bans researching the topic which is absolutely idiotic imho. Area cost would be smaller, output would be stable and higher and environmental cost would be a lot less than Windmills, the waste from a thorium plant only has a few hundreds of years of breakdown vs its uranium brother(many thousands) and also provide no fuel for nuke production. Nuclear(thorium) could be the supplier of electricity until other more advance means are perfected.
     
  19. FoxEye

    Caporegime

    Joined: 17 Feb 2006

    Posts: 28,582

    Location: Cornwall

    "Hi China, we're handing you the future on a plate. No need to thank us."

    It seems like China are pretty much the only people capable of R&D-ing and then actually building these things, with other nations either banning all things nuclear or being unable to get anything through planning to actually build them.

    Whilst democracy can (is supposed to) reflect the will of the people, the will of the people is not always in their own best interests, due to being ill-informed, selfish, etc.

    Just lol if we need China to save us after all.
     
  20. Tom_ed1987

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 1 Mar 2004

    Posts: 1,727

    Location: Warwickshire

    Encouraging quote from Boris at Cop26 today:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environ...at-serious-risk-of-failure-says-boris-johnson

    “Currently, let’s be in no doubt, we are not going to hit it and we have to be honest with ourselves,”

    If the summit is a failure, it will hopefully see the end to any net zero pledges & mark the start of a properly mature debate about what measures & more importantly mitigations are realistic & feasible.