Landmark UN Climate Change Report: Act Now To Avoid Climate Catastrophe | IFLScience

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/landmark-un-climate-change-report-act-now-to-avoid-climate-catastrophe/

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has unleashed their Special Report on the impact of global warming reaching 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
“This IPCC report is set to outline a rescue plan for humanity,”
“1.5°C is the new 2°C,”
If we stick to Paris Climate Agreement commitments, we could still see a global warming of about 3°C by 2100.

95 Comments

  1. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Y Combinator issues a request for geo-engineering startups because climate change is real and we’re all going to die
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/23/y-combinator-issues-a-request-for-geo-engineering-startups-because-climate-change-is-real-and-were-all-going-to-die/?utm_source=tcfbpage&sr_share=facebook

    Y Combinator, the wildly successful San Francisco-based startup accelerator, is issuing a request for startups that will focus on different kinds of geo-engineering technologies in a bid to mitigate the effects of climate change.

    With the acknowledgement earlier this month from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that drastic measures are going to be required to reverse climate change and protect the globe from catastrophic climatological events by 2050, the startup accelerator is hoping that its call to action might spur some new thinking.

    Reply
  2. Tomi Engdahl says:

    “If you really want to move toward carbon-free energy for the world, I don’t see how it can happen without nuclear and I don’t see how nuclear can grow without thorium,”

    http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181016-why-india-wants-to-turn-its-beaches-into-nuclear-fuel?ocid=fbfut

    Reply
  3. Tomi Engdahl says:

    There Aren’t Enough Fruit And Vegetables To Give The World A Healthy Diet, Claims Study
    https://www.iflscience.com/environment/there-arent-enough-fruit-and-vegetables-to-give-the-world-a-healthy-diet-claims-study/

    A study has said that we aren’t producing enough fruit and vegetables for everyone to eat a healthy diet.

    Published in the journal PLOS One, the research led by the University of Guelph looked at global agricultural production, extrapolating to the year 2050, compared with how much food nutritionists say we should eat. And the results weren’t particularly good news.

    “We simply can’t all adopt a healthy diet under the current global agriculture system

    Reply
  4. (It) can’t be helped. and (It) couldn’t be helped. definition says:

    Just wanna admit that this is handy, Thanks for taking your time to write this.

    Reply
  5. Tomi Engdahl says:

    CARBON CAPTURE IS MESSY AND FRAUGHT—BUT MIGHT BE ESSENTIAL
    https://www.wired.com/story/carbon-capture-is-messy-and-fraughtbut-might-be-essential/

    On paper, carbon capture is a simple proposition: Take carbon that we’ve pulled out of the Earth in the form of coal and oil and put into the atmosphere, and pull it out of the atmosphere and put it back in the Earth. It’s like hitting undo on the Industrial Revolution. And scientists can indeed yank CO2 out of thin air, except that the process is expensive, not very efficient, and morally complicated.

    Direct air capture, as it’s known, is one of several negative emissions technologies, or NETs, that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine explored in a massive report released last week. On the bright side of things, the authors found that strategies to get the Earth itself to reabsorb that CO2, for instance by building out forests, are effective and relatively simple. And that if we pour money into researching them, higher-tech options, like filtering CO2 out of the air and storing it underground, could go a long way in cutting back emissions.

    Problem, though: Who would pay for a company to sequester carbon underground? It’s like buying a new car and sealing it up in a cave. How to you incentivize the development of a technology if you can’t get rich off it?

    Reply
  6. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Bitcoin Mining Alone Could Raise Global Temperatures Above Critical Limit By 2033
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/neganb/bitcoin-mining-could-raise-global-temperatures-by-2-c

    A recent UN climate report said that if global temperatures rose above 1.5 C it could lead to catastrophic climate change. Bitcoin alone could raise global temperatures by 2 C within two decades.

    If Bitcoin is adopted at rates similar to other technologies, like credit cards, it could increase global temperatures by two degrees Celsius by 2033 according to a study published on Monday in Nature Climate Change.

    To put this in perspective, a recent climate change report from the United Nations found that a temperature increase of over 1.5 degrees Celsius would lead to irreversible, catastrophic climate effects.

    Bitcoin requires massive amounts of energy to run the computers that secure the record of transactions that have occurred on the network, which are stored in a digital ledger called a blockchain. Each computer is simultaneously searching for the solution to a complex math problem—a process known as mining since the first computer to solve the problem is rewarded with newly-minted Bitcoin.

    Bitcoin’s environmental footprint has been a serious point of criticism for years, mostly thanks to the work of the Dutch economist Alex de Vries.

    “This is another pretty shocking find relating to Bitcoin’s energy consumption,” de Vries told me in an email. “We already knew the electricity demand was extreme, but we didn’t yet have a clear picture of the environmental impact of this.”

    the researchers determined that Bitcoin generated 69 million metric tons of CO2 last year. To put this in perspective, that is a little over one percent of all CO2 emissions from energy production globally. This is a huge energy budget considering that Bitcoin accounted for just 0.03 percent of all cashless transactions globally in the same time frame, according to the study.

    To predict Bitcoin’s environmental footprint in the future, the University of Hawaii researchers looked at the adoption rates of other new technologies, such as credit cards and dishwashers, in the United States. These technologies were selected based on their incredibly rapid adoption, as was the case for credit cards, or their slow uptake, i.e. dishwashers. If Bitcoin is adopted at the average rate of these technologies, according to the study, it could produce enough emissions to warm the planet by two degrees Celcius in just 16 years. Even if it follows the slowest adoption rate, it will reach this same threshold within 22 years, the researchers concluded.

    “We cannot predict the future of Bitcoin, but if implemented at a rate even close to the slowest pace at which other technologies have been incorporated, it will spell very bad news for climate change and the people and species impacted by it,”

    Since Bitcoin was first unleashed on the world a decade ago, massive Bitcoin mines— basically warehouses filled with specialized computers—have started cropping up in places where energy is cheap, usually near hydroelectric power stations. Most Bitcoin mines are located in China, but a few have cropped up in the United States and Canada as well. In some cases, these mines are so large that they use the same amount of electricity as the town they are located in, much to the ire of local residents.

    Reply
  7. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Report: LEDs Cut 570 Million Tons of CO2 in ’17
    https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1332777

    SAN FRANCISCO — The efficiency of LEDs compared to traditional incandescent and fluorescent lighting is one of the most highly touted benefits of the technology. According to a new report by IHS Markit, the use of LEDs to light buildings and outdoor spaces reduced the total carbon dioxide emissions of lighting by some 570 million tons in 2017.
    This reduction, roughly equivalent to 162 coal-fired power plants, enabled LED component and lighting companies to reduce the global carbon footprint by about 1.5 percent this year, IHS Markit (London) estimates.

    Fox added: “Unlike in other industry sectors, workers at LED companies can honestly say that by selling more of their products, they are helping to reduce global warming.”

    LED lighting uses an average of about 40 percent less power than fluorescent and 80 percent less than incandescents

    Reply
  8. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Bioeconomies aim to become a beating heart of local communities, both rural and urban
    https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/bioeconomies-aim-become-beating-heart-local-communities-both-rural-and-urban.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=share

    The EU Research & Innovation Magazine
    Receive our editor’s picks
    ENVIRONMENTINDUSTRY
    Bioeconomies aim to become a beating heart of local communities, both rural and urban
    31 October 2018
    Print this page

    Firms such as Novamont in Italy are using renewable resources to develop bioplastics and biochemicals, through the use of biorefineries. Image credit – Novamont
    As the EU aims to head towards a sustainable, low-carbon future, experts in bio-based industries at the forefront of this transition are turning food waste and waste-water sludge into bioplastics and converting decommissioned factories into new biorefineries by working with local populations.

    According to figures cited in renewed EU plans for a circular bioeconomy, biobased industries, which currently account for 8% of the EU’s workforce, could create one million new green jobs by 2030. Projects in this area could stimulate local communities from both an economic and environmental perspective. They could also be key to uniting communities behind challenges like cutting down on plastics, which gained traction with the European Parliament last week moving to ban throw-away plastics.

    Reply
  9. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Climate change: Oceans ‘soaking up more heat than estimated’
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46046067

    The world has seriously underestimated the amount of heat soaked up by our oceans over the past 25 years, researchers say.

    Their study suggests that the seas have absorbed 60% more than previously thought.

    They say it means the Earth is more sensitive to fossil fuel emissions than estimated.

    Reply
  10. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Innovations in solar waste management will make a difference
    https://innovationcloud.com/blog/innovations-in-solar-waste-management-will-make-a-difference/?vis=bpfb301018

    We need energy. Lots of energy. And we found smart and innovative methods of producing it. Green, clean, however you like to call it. Most constant and widely spread sustainable form of power comes from solar industry, that is solar panels. They’ve been around for a long time doing a superb job., too. But. “No form of energy in its modern use is wholly clean”, says Mary Hutzler, senior fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

    China’s solar capacity and their ways to popularize solar plants. It is just a tiny bit of the county’s solar capacity, which is the world’s biggest – a staggering number of 130 gigawatts. Ranked 2nd behind China is the United States with more than 1.4 million solar energy installations in use.

    There are photo-voltaic panels almost everywhere. So, what’s the flaw, what’s the BUT?

    Waste. Solar waste. Those panels cannot live forever, and Panda, unfortunately, will not be waving until the end of time.

    Solar panel life expectancy is around 25 to 30 years. It is approximate

    Besides European Union countries, no one has regulations on solar waste management implemented. In EU PV panels are categorized as e-waste in the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive.

    In China, US, Japan…no regulations. Expenses for the recycling and disposal of the panels aren’t included in production costs.
    If we do not put in place the recycling procedures, by the end of 2050, we can expect 60 million tons of PV panels waste lying in depots. Mostly in China.

    Doesn’t sound so sustainable anymore, right?
    Lead, chromium, and cadmium are the bad guys. Harmful to human beings. Those elements could potentially end up in our drinking water systems. They are accumulating.

    You thought only plastic and glass were in the game? No, PV cells are a complicated combination of materials, hard for dissembling and recycling. And not only that – “Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than nuclear power plants.” – found out the Berkley-based group. Ooops.

    Two types of solar panels are used at the moment. Silicon-based PV panels are dominant and 90% of their content is not dangerous, but that 10 % of toxic elements are the problem-maker. And there are thin-film based panels.

    When it comes to silicon-based panels, using innovative processes 95% of the glass and 85% of the silicone material can be reused.

    It is highly important to start acting on this subject right now.

    Last but not least – profit! International consulting firm Global Market Insights predicts that the global PV panel disposal and recycling management market could be worth $360 million by 2024 and around 14 billion dollars in recoverable value by 2050.

    To conclude, there is nothing environmentally desirable about piling of hazardous waste while trying to go green

    Reply
  11. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Toimittajan puheenvuoro: Pelaamme planeetan kustannuksella – Videopelien ympäristövaikutuksista on vaiettu kyllin kauan
    https://muropaketti.com/pelit/toimittajan-puheenvuoro-pelaamme-planeetan-kustannuksella-videopelien-ymparistovaikutuksista-on-vaiettu-kyllin-kauan/

    Digitaalinen pelaaminen kuormittaa ympäristöä, vaikkei se aina arjessa näkyisi. Jotta asia muuttuisi mihinkään, vaaditaan kuluttajanvalintojen ohella aktiivisuutta peliyhtiöiltä ja lainsäätäjiltä.

    Reply
  12. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Your Downloadable Games May Be Worse for the Environment Than Game Discs
    No wonder those birds are so angry.
    https://www.themarysue.com/digital-distribution-carbon-footprint/

    Instead of churning out millions of discs to hold video games, publishers are moving towards digital distribution to lower costs and cut down on waste. If you’re not making millions of physical objects that will eventually be thrown away, that’s good for the environment, right? Wrong, says a new study: It may mean less trash, but digital distribution sometimes means more energy use and air pollution.

    According to a study published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, production, sale, and digital distribution of games under 1.3 GB in size produce less carbon emission than disc-based games, but for a standard 8.8 GB blu-ray game, roughly 20.82 kg of carbon dioxide goes into the life of a disc, but up to 27.53 kg could be generated by a digitally distributed copy.

    On the other hand, if you’re driving to the store just to pick up a video game and drive home again, you’re not spreading that carbon footprint around to other purchases, and the pollution difference of digital games and physical ones becomes “too close to call” according to the study.

    This could all change over the years as Internet technology evolves, but right now, for all their convenience, large digitally downloaded games may not actually cut down on waste but just move it into the air instead.

    Reply
  13. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/03/stop-biodiversity-loss-or-we-could-face-our-own-extinction-warns-un

    The world has two years to secure a deal for nature to halt a ‘silent killer’ as dangerous as climate change, says biodiversity chief

    Reply
  14. liveinternet.ru says:

    I uswed to be abe to fijd ggood advice fromm your content.

    Reply
  15. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Huippufyysikon havainto maailman tilasta: ”Lapsemme kysyvät meiltä 20 vuoden kuluttua, miksi ette jättäneet meille enempää luonnonvaroja?”
    https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10489803

    Reply
  16. Tomi Engdahl says:

    This is headlined as if it was a crisis, but surely this is exactly what is needed for the environmental reasons.

    Of course it is a challenge that many of our societies have been built as pyramid schemes that seem to need constant growth to stay afloat…

    ‘Remarkable’ decline in fertility rates
    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46118103?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_source=facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews

    There has been a remarkable global decline in the number of children women are having, say researchers.

    there are insufficient children to maintain their population size.

    The researchers said the findings were a “huge surprise”.

    In 1950, women were having an average of 4.7 children in their lifetime. The fertility rate all but halved to 2.4 children per woman by last year.

    The fertility rate in Niger, west Africa, is 7.1, but in the Mediterranean island of Cyprus women are having one child, on average.

    Whenever a country’s average fertility rate drops below approximately 2.1 then populations will eventually start to shrink

    More economically developed countries including most of Europe, the US, South Korea and Australia have lower fertility rates.

    It does not mean the number of people living in these countries is falling, at least not yet as the size of a population is a mix of the fertility rate, death rate and migration.

    But Prof Murray said: “We will soon be transitioning to a point where societies are grappling with a declining population.”

    Half the world’s nations are still producing enough children to grow, but as more countries advance economically, more will have lower fertility rates.

    three key factors:

    Fewer deaths in childhood meaning women have fewer babies
    Greater access to contraception
    More women in education and work

    In many ways, falling fertility rates are a success story.

    Reply
  17. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Smartphones Are Killing The Planet Faster Than Anyone Expected
    https://www.fastcompany.com/90165365/smartphones-are-wrecking-the-planet-faster-than-anyone-expected?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com

    Researchers are sounding the alarm after an analysis showed that buying a new smartphone consumes as much energy as using an existing phone for an entire decade.

    Even as the world shifts away from giant tower PCs toward tiny, energy-sipping phones, the overall environmental impact of technology is only getting worse. Whereas ICT represented 1% of the carbon footprint in 2007, it’s already about tripled, and is on its way to exceed 14% by 2040. That’s half as large as the carbon impact of the entire transportation industry.

    Smartphones are particularly insidious for a few reasons. With a two-year average life cycle, they’re more or less disposable. The problem is that building a new smartphone–and specifically, mining the rare materials inside them–represents 85% to 95% of the device’s total CO2 emissions for two years.

    Yet even as people are now buying phones less often, consumer electronics companies are attempting to make up for lost profits by selling bigger, fancier phones.

    In any case, keeping a smartphone for even three years instead of two can make a considerable impact to your own carbon footprint

    Reply
  18. Tomi Engdahl says:

    There are three options in tackling climate change. Only one will work
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/30/climate-change-action-effective-ipcc-report-fossil-fuels

    We’re now at a fork in the road: either we cut out fossil fuels completely, or we pass on a dying planet to our children

    Reply
  19. Tomi Engdahl says:

    To slash emissions, industries must capture carbon and store it
    https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/slash-emissions-industries-must-capture-carbon-and-store-it.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=share

    The technology to help limit global warming to 1.5˚C already exists, but there needs to be the will to use it, according to Kristin Jordal, an engineer and senior research scientist at the Norwegian research organisation Sintef.

    Reply
  20. Tomi Engdahl says:

    An unexpected weapon in the fight against climate change? Seagrass
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/we-desperately-need-to-store-more-carbon-seagrass-could-be-the-answer

    In principle, all living organisms – all animals, plants, algae and bacteria – consist of carbon and so function as a carbon sink. For example, as long as a tree lives it will absorb and store carbon. Given the sheer volume of all the trees contained in tropical forests, it’s no wonder most people imagine such forests when they think of a carbon sink.

    However, once chopped down and turned into firewood, the carbon in those trees will be released and emitted back into the atmosphere as CO₂.

    While forests and tundras are losing capacity for carbon storage, another often forgotten ecosystem may hold the answer: seagrass.

    Seagrass plants have an excellent capacity for taking up and storing carbon in the oxygen-depleted seabed, where it decomposes much slower than on land. This oxygen-free sediment traps the carbon in the dead plant material which may then remain buried for hundreds of years.

    Reply
  21. Tomi Engdahl says:

    China’s giant transmission grid could be the key to cutting climate emissions
    But are the country’s next-generation power lines a clean-power play or a global power move?
    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612390/chinas-giant-transmission-grid-could-be-the-key-to-cutting-climate-emissions/

    The workers were erecting a critical component of the world’s first 1.1-million volt transmission line, at a time when US companies are struggling to build anything above 500,000 volts. Once the government-owned utility, State Grid of China, completes the project next year, the line will stretch from the Xinjiang region in the northwest to Anhui in the east, connecting power plants deep in the interior of the country to cities near the coast.

    The transmission line will be capable of delivering the output of 12 large power plants over nearly 2,000 miles (3,200 kilometers), sending 50% more electricity 600 miles further than anything that’s ever been built.

    Politics and bureaucracy have stymied the deployment of such immense, modern power grids in much of the world. In the United States, it can take more than a decade to secure the necessary approvals for the towers, wires, and underground tubes that cut across swaths of federal, national, state, county, and private lands—on the rare occasion when they get approved at all.

    “A long-distance interconnected transmission grid is a big piece of the climate puzzle,” says Steven Chu, the former US energy secretary, who serves as vice chairman of the nonprofit that State Grid launched in 2016 to promote international grid connections. “China is saying ‘We want to be leaders in all these future technologies’ instead of looking in the rear-view mirror like the United States seems to be doing at the moment.”

    But facilitating the greater use of renewables clearly isn’t China’s only, or even primary, motivation. Transmission infrastructure is a strategic piece of the Belt and Road Initiative, China’s multitrillion-dollar effort to build development projects and trade relationships across dozens of nations

    State Grid is probably the biggest company you’ve never heard of, with nearly 1 million employees and 1.1 billion customers. Last year, it reported $9.5 billion in profits on $350 billion in revenue, making it the second-largest company on Fortune’s Global 500 list.

    State Grid is already the biggest power distributor in Brazil

    “A lot of Chinese companies are very ambitious in spreading overseas,”

    Reply
  22. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The Growing Case for Geoengineering 15:26
    David Keith discusses the science behind geoengineering and the latest breakthroughs in the field.
    https://www.technologyreview.com/video/609398/the-growing-case-for-geoengineering/

    Reply
  23. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Siemens presents: The first 1,100 kV HVDC Transformer (full version)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqfA4fSGSqk

    The most powerful HVDC transformer in the world will enable low-loss high-voltage direct-current power transmission over a record distance of 3,284 km. Siemens Transformers has thereby reached a completely new level of HVDC: for the first time worldwide, direct-current electricity can be transmitted at a gigantic 1,100 kV.
    https://www.siemens.com/transformers

    Reply
  24. Tomi Engdahl says:

    INDUSTRY
    To reduce food waste, scientists are making labels that track produce as it spoils
    https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/reduce-food-waste-scientists-are-making-labels-track-produce-it-spoils.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=share

    According to a study conducted in 2016, an estimated 88 million tonnes of food waste is produced in the European Union annually – equivalent to about 173kg per person. An estimated 60% of the food thrown away in households is edible while in the wholesale and retail sector that figure increases to 83%.

    more than a fifth of still-edible food is unnecessarily discarded due to date inaccuracies or confusion about what the dates actually mean. For instance, many Europeans confuse best-before dates – a recommended consumption time frame for when a product is freshest – with expiry dates.

    ‘Suppliers tend to build in a margin of error to mitigate the risk of the cold storage chain being broken,’ she said. ‘It means that if the supply chain works perfectly, perishable products are going out of date and being thrown away before they have actually spoiled.’

    Reply
  25. Britney says:

    Terrific article! This is the kiond of info that should bbe shared around the web.
    Disgrace on tthe search engines for no longer positioning this
    post upper! Come on over and seek advice from my web site .

    Thankss =)

    Reply
  26. Tomi Engdahl says:

    New US report says that climate change could cost nearly $500B per year by 2090
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/23/new-u-s-report-says-that-climate-change-could-cost-nearly-500-billion-per-year-by-2090/?sr_share=facebook&utm_source=tcfbpage

    A new report from the U.S. government on the impacts of climate change on society indicates that unless action is taken, climatological events could cost the country nearly half a trillion dollars annually by 2090.

    It’s the second volume of a report intended to give federal policymakers information on how global warming will impact the United States.

    Reply
  27. Tomi Engdahl says:

    HOW WILL WE GET ENOUGH NUCLEAR BY 2050?
    http://4thgeneration.energy/how-will-we-get-enough-nuclear-by-2050/

    Slow, but still kind of fast?
    It will have taken almost 15 years for Olkiluoto 3, the EPR new-build in Finland, to get from start to finish. Similar reactors in Taishan, China, were built in almost half that time. Yet even the single Olkiluoto 3 project has been a fast way to build low-carbon energy in Finland on a per capita basis. The capacity is similar to the largest wind farm in the US (Alta Wind Energy Center at 1.547 GW of nameplate capacity[ii]), and the annual energy production will be perhaps three times higher, thanks to the higher capacity factor that nuclear power has.

    But this does not mean we could not do better; there has been a lot of bottlenecks and incompetence in western nuclear construction, and a lot of those result from the fact that we have not been building new nuclear for decades. We need to build more to be able to build better and faster.

    Why is this not happening?
    Well, first we would need to start taking climate mitigation seriously. Most people and politicians, even scientists, are still playing with climate change like it was a game they can fail and then have another try.

    Reply
  28. Tomi Engdahl says:

    ADVANCED NUCLEAR CAN MAKE GASOLINE OUT OF WATER
    http://4thgeneration.energy/advanced-nuclear-can-make-gasoline-out-of-water/

    The international transport sector consumes 20% of total global energy, and it is almost entirely powered by fossil fuels, thereby contributing significantly to global carbon emissions. There are no technological prospects that show any demonstrable signs of materially changing this construct quickly enough to mitigate the deleterious effects that transport energy has on climate change.

    Transport fuels consist entirely of hydrocarbons. These are formulations of the elements hydrogen and carbon. Hydrogen and carbon are plentiful elements in nature

    petroleum is still, by far, the lowest-cost and lowest-emission input for the production of transport fuels.

    Many Generation-IV advanced nuclear reactor systems are designed to be high-temperature systems, and they have the capability of delivering extremely high-quality and high-temperature industrial heat.

    ultra-low carbon emissions on a life cycles basis

    12 grams CO2-eq/kWh, which is approximately one-quarter of the life cycle emissions of solar power, and approximately equal to wind power and hydro power.

    promise of generating power cost-competitively with fossil fuels. This is a critical factor for widespread industrial adoption, and it is a critical factor for the economic feasibility of synthetic transport fuels.

    All the technologies required to make gasoline from water are proven technologies and can be built and integrated today.

    Reply
  29. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Here’s What Earth Might Look Like In 100 Years – If We’re Lucky
    https://www.iflscience.com/environment/heres-what-earth-might-look-like-in-100-years-if-were-lucky-0/

    America Recycles Day is on Thursday. The green holiday exists for good reason: Recycling helps keep rubbish off the roads, reduces the need for Earth-scarring mining operations, and creates jobs.

    The practice also keeps planet-warming carbon dioxide out of the air. Every ton of recycled aluminum cans (about 64,000 of them) keeps 10 tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere, according to Popular Mechanics.

    “There’s no stopping global warming,”

    “Everything that’s happened so far is baked into the system.”

    That means that even if carbon emissions were to drop to zero tomorrow, we’d still be watching human-driven climate change play out for centuries. Even then, emissions aren’t going to stop immediately. The key thing now, Schmidt said, is to slow climate change down enough to allow us to adapt as painlessly as possible.

    In 2016, planet Earth’s temperature averaged 1.26 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages, which is dangerously close to the 1.5-degree-Celsius limit set by international policymakers in the Paris climate accord.

    Researchers now worry that, beyond 2 degrees C increase, we may tip the balance of our planet’s systems toward a “hothouse Earth” scenario in which temperatures unassailably rise to 4 or 5 degrees.

    Reply
  30. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Storing CO2 underground can curb carbon emissions, but is it safe?
    https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/storing-co2-underground-can-curb-carbon-emissions-it-safe.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=share

    At first glance, it almost sounds crazy. Can we really take carbon dioxide emissions from an industrial plant and store them underground? To find out, research is currently taking place to test if such an idea is not only viable but safe, and prove that to the public.

    This approach is known as carbon capture and storage (CCS) and it’s been around for decades but has never really taken off. In its recent reports, however, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that CCS could have a key role to play if we’re going to meet our climate goals in the coming years.

    Reply
  31. Tomi Engdahl says:

    ‘Internet of electricity’ and zero-carbon molecules will help decarbonise Europe – report
    https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/internet-electricity-and-zero-carbon-molecules-will-help-decarbonise-europe-report.html?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=share

    An ‘internet of electricity’, zero-carbon cities and turning European soils into carbon sinks are among a slew of ambitious ideas to decarbonise our society and slash greenhouse gas emissions proposed by environmental experts in a report published on 28 November.

    Reply
  32. Tomi Engdahl says:

    All G20 Leaders – Except Trump – Pledge To Fight Climate Change At 2018 Summit
    https://www.iflscience.com/policy/all-g20-leaders-except-trump-pledge-to-fight-climate-change-at-2018-summit/

    highlights just how very separate the US is right now, from the rest of its allies.

    And the main sticking point? Climate change, of course.

    Reply
  33. Tomi Engdahl says:

    https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10541743

    Creating a Sustainable Food Future
    https://www.wri.org/publication/creating-sustainable-food-future

    A Menu of Solutions to Feed Nearly 10 Billion People by 2050

    Reply
  34. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Cove.Tool wants to solve climate change one efficient building at a time
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/04/cove-tool-wants-to-solve-climate-change-one-efficient-building-at-a-time/?utm_source=tcfbpage&sr_share=facebook

    As the fight against climate change heats up, Cove.Tool is looking to help tackle carbon emissions one building at a time.

    The Atlanta-based startup provides an automated big-data platform that helps architects, engineers and contractors identify the most cost-effective ways to make buildings compliant with energy efficiency requirements.

    Reply
  35. Tomi Engdahl says:

    https://professorinajatuksia.blogspot.com/2018/12/jarjesto-esitti-jarjettoman-vaatimuksen.html?spref=fb&m=1

    järjestö vaatii minua muuttamaan syömistottumuksiani, jotta kehitysmaalaisten ei tarvitsisi muuttaa lisääntymiskäyttäytymistään. Logiikka on mielenkiintoinen.

    Reply
  36. Tomi Engdahl says:

    “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

    Climate Change Is “Our Greatest Threat In Thousands Of Years,” Says Attenborough
    https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-is-our-greatest-threat-in-thousands-of-years-says-attenborough/

    “We are facing a man-made disaster of global scale,” David Attenborough warned audiences at the opening ceremony of the UN climate change summit on Monday – “Our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change.”

    Reply
  37. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change?fbclid=IwAR2wGquxOJaJ_Qbezzzjn_ie0EXwlj0w_6lqvBq-ldOzPyhNHrwAmg1S_a0

    To solve the climate problem, policy must be based on facts and not prejudice. Alongside renewables, Nuclear will make the difference between the world missing crucial climate targets or achieving them

    To avoid the worst effects of climate change, including continued sea level rise, the total loss of Arctic sea ice and devastating effects on human societies and natural ecosystems alike, rapid global decarbonisation is needed.

    Everyone agrees that the most urgent component of decarbonisation is a move towards clean energy, and clean electricity in particular. We need affordable, abundant clean energy, but there is no particular reason why we should favour renewable energy over other forms of abundant energy. Indeed, cutting down forests for bioenergy and – both commonly counted as renewable energy sources – can have terrible environmental consequences.

    Nuclear power, particularly next-generation nuclear power with a closed fuel cycle (where spent fuel is reprocessed), is uniquely scalable, and environmentally advantageous.

    Reply
  38. anapolan max says:

    I am now not sure where you’re getting your info, however great topic.
    I must spend some time studying much more or
    working out more. Thanks for great information I was on the
    lookout for this info for my mission.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

*