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.
1,201 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
What I Told College Students About the Economics of Climate Change
https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/what-i-told-college-students-about-the-economics-of-climate-change/
There is a huge disconnect between what the published economics research actually says about government policies to limit global warming, and how the media is reporting it.
Tomi Engdahl says:
How fear of nuclear power is hurting the environment | Michael Shellenberger
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LZXUR4z2P9w&feature=youtu.be
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-are-worried-about-the-effects-of-a-rogue-country-geo-hacking-the-climate
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://www.severe-weather.eu/mcd/update-on-the-intense-heat-wave-next-week-much-above-normal-temperatures-will-develop-across-west-central-europe-june-24-30th-2019/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Yksi asia on ihmiskunnan kohtalonkysymys, mutta silti siitä ei halua puhua kukaan – Miksi väestönkasvusta tuli ilmastokeskustelun tabu?
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10825443?utm_source=facebook-share&utm_medium=social&fbclid=IwAR3z8h4Z0BXnFcYwx5HMObtmPpBMQPXxRKMfHudSo9vyepJdFDy0mZCwAew
Tomi Engdahl says:
I’m an environmental journalist, but I never write about overpopulation. Here’s why.
Since you asked (many times).
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question
This piece was originally published in September 2017. It has been lightly updated.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Which climate innovations will really limit global warming?
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/which-climate-innovations-will-really-limit-global-warming.html
From a chemical-free spray that turns sand into lush green land, to a caterer who serves planet-friendly dishes, and from technology that makes stronger concrete with less cement, to insect farms that produce fish food and fertilisers, there is no shortage of ideas to reduce emissions. But which ones work best?
By 2030, annual emissions need to be cut by 55% from this number to limit global warming to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the UN agency says.
In 2018, energy-related CO2 emissions rose to a historic high of 33.1 gigatons, according to the International Energy Agency.
‘There isn’t any time to waste and there aren’t any resources to waste, and we have to ensure that the resources we are using are focused in the right places,’ said Hennessy. ‘We need to be thinking and enabling a much faster change in the solutions that we invest in.’
Tomi Engdahl says:
Flashback 1971: Scientists Predict Burning Coal Will Cause The Next Ice Age
https://247sports.com/college/auburn/Board/104012/Contents/Scientists-Predict-Burning-Coal-Will-Cause-The-Next-Ice-Age-70785923/
The world is on the verge of another ice age. Well, at least that’s what scientists told us in the 1970s: burning fossil fuels like coal would cause the world to plunge into another ice age in the 21st Century.
“The world could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” the Washington Post reported on July 9, 1971, quoting Dr. S. I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Do I emit CO2 when I surf the internet?
https://www.energuide.be/en/questions-answers/do-i-emit-co2-when-i-surf-the-internet/69/
We tend to forget about this, but every web search, every email sent or received, and every status update on Facebook means the consumption of electricity and therefore the emission of greenhouse gases!
In 2018, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) account for 6 to 10% of global electricity consumption, or 4% of our greenhouse gas emissions.
web infrastructures are oversized in order to respond to peak usage. A router, for example, generally operates at 60% of its capacity. But even when inactive, these devices consume almost as much energy as when they’re running at full capacity, and no provision is made for switching them off during off-peak hours!
Finally, broadband boxes installed in the home have no stop buttons and operate day and night. Why? They usually take 90 seconds to come on, initialise and connect, and the suppliers believe that we as consumers do not have the patience to wait so long every day..
Infographic: The Carbon Footprint of the Internet
https://climatecare.org/infographic-the-carbon-footprint-of-the-internet/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ylellä satakertainen virhe puhelimen ilmastovaikutuksista
https://www.verkkouutiset.fi/ylella-satakertainen-virhe-puhelimen-ilmastovaikutuksista/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Uusi tutkimus osoittaa metsätalouden ilmastovaikutukset arvioitua suuremmiksi – Professori: “Käytämme luonnonresurssia vähän hullulla tavalla”
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10857072
Tomi Engdahl says:
Pakko sanoa, pakko olla hiljaa – ilmastokriisini nyt
https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2019/06/28/pakko-sanoa-pakko-olla-hiljaa-ilmastokriisini-nyt
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ympäristörealistin käsikirja – minidokumentti
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LGwHu7hht7A&feature=share
Mihin voi ympäristöpuheessa luottaa? Paljonko merkitsee jos syön lihaa? Ajetaanko ilmastoasian varjolla jotain muutakin?
https://www.suomenperusta.fi/julkaisu/ymparistorealistin-kasikirja/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nuclear Power. Why is It The Last Option in Most Countries?
https://www.electricaltechnology.org/2015/03/nuclear-power-the-last-option.html
Nuclear energy is becoming well developed as a source of energy. Compared to other sources of energy like solar energy, and hydroelectricity, nuclear energy is more stable in that its power supply is stable.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Pakko sanoa, pakko olla hiljaa – ilmastokriisini nyt
https://yle.fi/aihe/artikkeli/2019/06/28/pakko-sanoa-pakko-olla-hiljaa-ilmastokriisini-nyt
Minua painaa raskas dilemma. Se on ammatillinen ja eksistentiaalinen – jopa henkilökohtainen. Se kuuluu näin: Jos arvelee, että ilmastokatastrofia ei voi enää estää, onko sitä mitään mieltä sanoa ääneen?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Heat waves bring record-breaking temperatures on a geological scale
https://tcrn.ch/2NCUh5k
Tomi Engdahl says:
‘Biggest compliment yet’: Greta Thunberg welcomes oil chief’s ‘greatest threat’ label
Activists say comments by Opec head prove world opinion is turning against fossil fuels
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/05/biggest-compliment-yet-greta-thunberg-welcomes-oil-chiefs-greatest-threat-label
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mullistava tutkimustulos: Puiden istuttaminen on tehokkaampi ja halvempi kuin mikään muu ilmastonmuutoksen torjuntakeino
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10863916?utm_source=facebook-share&utm_medium=social
Miljardien puiden istuttamisella olisi “tajunnanräjäyttävä vaikutus” ilmastonmuutoksen torjumisessa, sanovat tutkijat.
Tomi Engdahl says:
REPORT
The global tree restoration potential
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/76
The restoration of forested land at a global scale could help capture atmospheric carbon and mitigate climate change.
Ecosystems could support an additional 0.9 billion hectares of continuous forest. This would represent a greater than 25% increase in forested area, including more than 500 billion trees and more than 200 gigatonnes of additional carbon at maturity. Such a change has the potential to cut the atmospheric carbon pool by about 25%.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.suomenperusta.fi/julkaisu/ymparistorealistin-kasikirja/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Liikenneministeriö haluaa tietotekniikka-alan päästöt kuriin
Liikenneministeriön mukaan myös tietotekniikka-alan päästöjä pitää tarkastella, jotta Pariisin sopimuksen ilmastotavoite saavutetaan.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10850052
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10868974
Tomi Engdahl says:
9 Things You Can Do About Climate Change
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2017/01/23/nine-things-you-can-do-about-climate-change/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Streaming online pornography produces as much CO2 as Belgium
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/streaming-online-pornography-produces-as-much-co2-as-belgium/
The transmission and viewing of online videos generates 300 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, or nearly 1 per cent of global emissions. On-demand video services such as Netflix account for a third of this, with online pornographic videos generating another third.
This means the watching of pornographic videos generates as much CO2 per year as is emitted by countries such as Belgium, Bangladesh and Nigeria.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Earlier this year, it estimated that digital technologies produce 4 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions and that this figure could soar to 8 per cent by 2025.
Now it has estimated the CO2 emissions due to online videos alone.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/12/streaming-online-pornography-produces-as-much-co2-as-belgium/
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://aveollila1.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/278326-ipccn-kasvihuoneilmiomaaritelma-on-ikiliikkuja-eli-se-luo-energiaa-tyhjasta
”Maanpinnan emittoiman (=säteilemän) pitkäaaltoisen säteilyn (= infrapunasäteilyn) absorboi suurelta osin tietyt ilmankehän aineosat (=kasvihuonekaasut ja pilvet), jotka emittoivat infrapunasäteilyä kaikkiin suuntiin. Alaspäin suuntautuva osa tästä infrapunasäteilystä lisää lämpöä ilmakehän alimpiin kerroksiin ja maanpinnalle (=kasvihuoneilmiö).
Tämä määritelmä on yksiselitteinen ja selkeä, mutta se on fysiikan lakien vastainen.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.climatexam.com/
This net page shows what are the errors of the IPCC’s climate model:
The real contributions of the greenhouse gases in the greenhouse phenomenon.
Does the positive water feedback exist, which doubles the warming effects of GH gases?
What is the correct radiative forcing (RF) of carbon dioxide.
What are the residence times of anthropogenic and total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The result of these analyses is that the climate sensitivity 1.8 C degrees as reported by the IPCC is 200 % too high and the real value is 0.6 C degrees only
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.climatexam.com/2018
CHALLENGING THE SCIENCE BASIS OF THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT
General
This rather long story is based on the research study be name “Challenging the scientific basis of the Paris climate agreement” published in International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management in April 2018:
The Paris Agreement or COP21 (21st Conference of the Parties) into effect on 4th November, 2016. The climate agreement was ratified by 160 countries by the end of August 2017. The Paris agreement is now legally binding but does not contain legally binding provisions.
The aim of the COP21 (2015) is to keep a global temperature increase below 2 ⁰C by 2100 and to drive efforts to limit the temperature increase even to 1.5 ⁰C above pre-industrial levels. Therefore, the emissions should be reduced to 40 GtCO2eq. In addition, the 1.5 ⁰C scenario demands that the emissions be reduced further (COP21, 2016), as anticipated in the special report to be prepared by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in 2018.
The emission target of 40 GtCO2eq can be compared to the global GH gas emission of 53.5 GtCO2eq in 2012. It means that the present emissions are already above the COP21 target. The global CO2 emissions of 36.3 GtCO2 in 2016 and they have been at this level during the last five years. These emissions include China 10.6 GtCO2, USA 5.3 GtCO2, and the EU 3.4 GtCO2. China’s emissions grow steadily, and it has not promised to reduce the emissions before 2030. The COP21 also includes a financing statement that the industrialized countries promise to deliver $100 billion a year of aid to developing countries for climate-related projects prior to 2025.
COP21 scientific basis
COP21 does not define the scientific basis of the agreement for the warming effects of the anthropogenic emissions, but it refers to a scenario. This scenario has not been defined in the COP21, but it can be found. The scientific resource of United Nations as well as of the COP21 is IPCC.
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://lumedemokratia.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/278485-ilmastonmuutoksesta-valtionuskonto
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://aveollila1.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/278451-ipccn-malleissa-hiilidioksidin-lammitysvaikutus-liian-suuri-kaksi-todistetta
Tomi Engdahl says:
Online Porn Pumps Out As Much Carbon Dioxide As A Small Industrial Country
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/online-porn-pumps-out-as-much-carbon-dioxide-as-a-small-industrial-country/
Video streaming accounts for around 60 percent of all data flow online, which means it also accounts for over 300 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Since almost a third of streamed video content is pornography, online porn pumps out around 100 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, more than the annual output of Israel.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The market for “green” or environmentally-friendly investments has exploded to over $30 trillion—but investors are finding it hard to navigate a market with murky labeling and unclear definitions of “green.”
Why Oil And Gas Stocks Keep Leaking Into ‘Green’ Investments
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddawkins/2019/07/19/why-oil-and-gas-stocks-keep-leaking-into-green-investments/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2489602884&utm_campaign=sprinklrForbesMainFB#279b4c041034
The market for “green” or environmentally-friendly investments has exploded to over $30 trillion but investors are finding it hard to navigate a market with murky labelling and unclear definitions.
Investing with a focus on environmental, social and corporate governance has become a major investment trend but industry leaders worry about “greenwashing” – where investors are mislead or misunderstand the sustainability record of their fund or investment product.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Vaherto tutustui ilmastonmuutokseen liittyvään tutkimukseen. Se antoi maapallon tulevaisuudesta synkän kuvan.
Niin synkän, että jostakin itselle tärkeästä luopuminen ilmastonmuutoksen pysäyttämiseksi tuntuu lopputuloksen kannalta täysin turhalta.
https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-10867662
Tomi Engdahl says:
How Much CO2 Does A Single Volcano Emit?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/06/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Malorie/#d92360f5cbf5
Every volcanic eruption that occurs on planet Earth is full of pollutants. Not just ash and dust, mind you, but also carbon dioxide: one of the strongest greenhouse gases on our planet. In the largest cases, a single volcanic plume, lasting only hours, might add many millions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Could it be the case, then, that individual volcanoes add more carbon dioxide to our atmosphere than human activity does?
176 845 views|Jun 6, 2017,8:00 am
How Much CO2 Does A Single Volcano Emit?
Ethan SiegelContributor
Starts With A BangContributor Group
Science
The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
When volcanoes erupt, a large amount of material from the Earth’s interior, including extraordinary amounts of carbon dioxide, are released into the atmosphere.
When volcanoes erupt, a large amount of material from the Earth’s interior, including extraordinary amounts of carbon dioxide, are released into the atmosphere. EUROPEAN GEOSCIENCES UNION
Every volcanic eruption that occurs on planet Earth is full of pollutants. Not just ash and dust, mind you, but also carbon dioxide: one of the strongest greenhouse gases on our planet. In the largest cases, a single volcanic plume, lasting only hours, might add many millions of tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Could it be the case, then, that individual volcanoes add more carbon dioxide to our atmosphere than human activity does? To find the answer, we’ve got to look to the scientific data.
The Earth as viewed from a composite of NASA satellite images from space in the early 2000s.
The Earth as viewed from a composite of NASA satellite images from space in the early 2000s. NASA / BLUE MARBLE PROJECT
As viewed from space, it’s immediately clear that the Earth is a truly living planet, distinct from every other known world in the Solar System. With continents, liquid oceans, icecaps, changing cloud patterns, and a thin but substantial atmosphere, our planet is teeming with life, changing from day-to-day and season-to-season. Without the atmosphere, our world would be some 33º C (59º F) cooler, would be incapable of having liquid water on the surface, and would see the most important part of our world – the surface – change irrevocably. Even though it’s only around 0.0001% the mass of our planet, the atmosphere makes our world habitable.
The atmosphere of the Earth, although only 5.15 x 10^18 kilograms in mass (just under 0.0001% of the Earth’s mass), plays a tremendous role in defining the properties of our surface.
The atmosphere of the Earth, although only 5.15 x 10^18 kilograms in mass (just under 0.0001% of the Earth’s mass), plays a tremendous role in defining the properties of our surface. COSMONAUT FYODOR YURCHIKHIN / RUSSIAN SPACE AGENCY PRESS SERVICES
The pressure allows water to exist in the liquid phase, and the heat-trapping clouds and gases like water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide give us the warmth necessary to have oceans. Carbon in particular is a tremendous part of our planet; it’s the fourth most abundant element in the Universe, the essential element for organic matter, and – other than the Sun – is the most important factor in determining Earth’s temperature. It’s also the essential element in two of the three major greenhouse gases playing a role in our temperature, with water vapor varying tremendously based on other factors. But most of that carbon is sequestered not in the Earth’s crust, but deep within the mantle.
Trillions of tons of molten carbon have been discovered beneath the Earth’s crust, including – in the form of carbonate – beneath a large section of the United States.
Trillions of tons of molten carbon have been discovered beneath the Earth’s crust, including – in the form of carbonate – beneath a large section of the United States. ROYAL HOLLOWAY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
For billions of years, geological processes like volcanic eruptions controlled the carbon concentration in the atmosphere, as volcanism is the major way that carbon rises from the mantle into the atmosphere. Most of the carbon stored in the mantle is in the form of carbonate (a salt of carbonic acid), but there are also huge stores of actual carbon dioxide sequestered deep within the mantle as a dissolved gas within the liquid rock.
new estimate of the amount of carbon in the Earth’s upper mantle: approximately 100 trillion tons. By contrast, there are only about 3.2 trillion tons of CO2 (containing about 870 billion tons of actual carbon) in the atmosphere today.
Humans emit around 29 billion tons of CO2 each year: a little less than 1% of present atmospheric CO2. We tend to think of erupting volcanoes with active, smoking plumes as the biggest source of carbon dioxide
Add all of these up, and you get an estimate of around 645 million tons of CO2 per year. Yes, there are uncertainties; yes, there’s annual variation; yes,
The Earth’s mantle is full of trillions of tons of carbon alone, and if even a small percent of it were added to the atmosphere, it has the potential to be absolutely catastrophic for the planet. But given the scales of the eruptions we actually have, less than a billion tons are emitted per year thanks to volcanic activity
If not for the influence of humans, the climate and carbon dioxide concentrations would be stable. Rising CO2 is a problem that we’re actively causing, and if we want to fix it, that’s up to us,
Tomi Engdahl says:
So You Think We’re Reducing Fossil Fuel Use? Think Again.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/07/20/so-you-think-were-reducing-fossil-fuel-think-again/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Paulie/#7742b6c052fb
If you think we’ve been doing a reasonable job of curbing fossil fuel use, you are sadly mistaken. Global energy demand grew yet again in 2018, by 2.3%, its fastest pace in ten years. 70% of that was provided by fossil fuel, and only 30% by renewables and nuclear.
Until growth in renewables exceeds that of fossil fuels, and by a lot, we will make no headway against the environmental problems we need to solve in the next two decades.
Renewables and fully electric vehicles aside, all fossil fuels are increasing worldwide primarily because of economic growth in the developing world.
While the developed world is switching from coal to natural gas, the developing world sees coal as their savior. This not because coal is cheapest – it’s not.
Of all energy sources, coal is merely the easiest to set up. Coal is the easiest to install in a poor or developing country that has little existing infrastructure.
While it is easiest to build a natural gas-fired power plant, it is not at all easy to support it. Natural gas requires more infrastructure than any other energy source
In the developing world, large-scale renewables are not effective since there is no baseload to support them, no back-up sources to load-follow the intermittency, and no extensive high-voltage distribution system. Hydro is possible in the developing world, but is limited physiographically.
coal is the obvious energy source to bring a country’s starving people up into the modern world. After that, they may have the luxury to care about the planet.
Renewables have grown rapidly relative to themselves, but are still small with respect to fossil fuel growth. In fact, just the growth in fossil fuel last year exceeded the growth in renewables over the same time period.
Nuclear and hydro are level worldwide, and are predicted to grow only moderately in the next few decades.
more energy means less poverty. In the developing world, there are still over a billion people that have no access to electricity, whatsoever. 2 billion people still burn wood and manure as their main source of energy. And 3 billion more people will be born in the next 30 years.
We can do this with or without fossil fuels.
It turns out that the cost of this new low-carbon mix is about the same as business-as-usual, $65 trillion versus $63 trillion, over about 30 years.
It might not be possible in our present global political climate to achieve a truly low-carbon energy world
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennysplitter/2019/07/22/plant-based-persuasion-the-tricky-psychology-behind-eat-less-beef/?utm_source=FBPAGE&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2496003765&utm_campaign=sprinklrForbesMainFB#4d2baada2299
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.iflscience.com/environment/iceland-honors-first-glacier-to-disappear-due-to-climate-change-with-memorial-letter-to-the-future/
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon
Once in operation, electric cars certainly reduce your carbon footprint, but making the lithium-ion batteries could emit 74% more CO2 than for conventional cars.
Tomi Engdahl says:
”This means that the first duty of a journalist is to cover neglected issues. So I want to direct you to the 70% of the planet that was sidelined even in the sparse coverage of the new report: the seas. Here, life is collapsing even faster than on land. The main cause, the UN biodiversity report makes clear, is not plastic. It is not pollution, not climate breakdown, not even the acidification of the ocean. It is fishing.”
Stop eating fish. It’s the only way to save the life in our seas
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/09/seas-stop-eating-fish-fishing-industry-government
Tomi Engdahl says:
Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth’s natural life
This article is more than 2 months old
Scientists reveal 1 million species at risk of extinction in damning UN report
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report
Tomi Engdahl says:
Shoppers ‘can’t afford’ energy efficient cars, homes – researchers
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/shoppers-can-t-afford-energy-efficient-cars-homes-researchers.html
Europeans can slash their fuel bills and have a significant impact on curbing global greenhouse gas emissions by buying more energy efficient cars, homes or even fridges – but many do not because of higher initial cost of green products, mistrust in EU energy ratings, and lack of awareness of long-term savings, researchers say.
Less than 2% of properties sold in Ireland between January 2017 and October 2018 were A rated – the highest energy efficient rating for homes – despite many technologies available to upgrade homes.
And just 11% of dishwashers and 14% of fridges sold in 2018 in Spain were of the highest A+++ energy rating for appliances.
‘The main reason is that (consumers) can’t afford them. For the most part the more energy efficient product is more expensive,’ Prof. Denny said.
Lack of trust was another major factor, with 60% of people believing that sellers of cars, properties and household appliances are manipulating the energy efficiency information they provide.
The researchers said this may be a legacy of ‘dieselgate’
Dieselgate had a ‘huge impact’
Europe’s energy consumption is increasing, so it is ‘extremely important’ that people buy well, said Prof. Galarraga. ‘Energy efficiency is one of the easiest ways of saving energy, it’s one of the most efficient ways of doing it and it’s one of the cheapest ways,’ he said.
Households make up around a quarter of Europe’s total energy consumption and produce a fifth of the EU’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Consumers also should be told how much a particular house or car costs to run, she added. ‘Providing this sort of information … encourages people to invest in more energy efficient properties and cars.’
‘Nudges are easy politically … but we should not be under any illusion that they can solve a problem which is as serious as climate change,’ he said.
The car industry in Britain has blamed a recent drop in sales of low-emission vehicles on ‘confusing’ policies and the UK government’s decision to end or reduce subsidies.
EU countries have committed to rolling out nearly 200 million smart meters for electricity and 45 million for gas by 2020.
Seeing how much each appliance is consuming in real time ‘will make a huge difference in your behaviour’, said Prof. Galarraga.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736
Do you remember the good old days when we had “12 years to save the planet”?
Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.
Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.
But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.
One of the understated headlines in last year’s IPCC report was that global emissions of carbon dioxide must peak by 2020 to keep the planet below 1.5C.
Current plans are nowhere near strong enough
if the 45% carbon cut target by 2030 is to be met then the plans really need to be on the table by the end of 2020
Prince Charles’ sense that the next 18 months are critical is shared by some climate negotiators.
Earlier this year a major study on the losses being felt across the natural world as result of broader human impacts caused a huge stir among governments.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Semiconductor CEOs on Computing’s Big Role in Slowing the Advance of Climate Change
https://spectrum.ieee.org/view-from-the-valley/semiconductors/design/semiconductor-ceos-on-life-after-moores-law-climate-change
We have entered a “Renaissance of Silicon.” That was the thesis of a panel that brought together semiconductor industry CEOs at Micron Technology’s San Jose campus last week. This renaissance, the executives indicated, will lead to an exciting—but not predictable—innovation in chip technology driven by applications that demand more computing power and by the demise of Moore’s Law.
“I’ve never seen a more exciting time in my 40 years in the industry,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, CEO of Micron Technology.
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://horizon-magazine.eu/article/people-cities-hold-key-ensuring-sustainable-future.html
Tomi Engdahl says:
10 Breakthrough Technologies Can Help Feed the World Without Destroying It
https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/07/10-breakthrough-technologies-can-help-feed-world-without-destroying-it
How can the world feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050 while also advancing economic development, protecting and restoring forests, and stabilizing the climate?
It won’t be easy and will require major new efforts, but it can be done.
Researchers are developing lower-emissions rice varieties, feed additives and other technological innovations to create a more sustainable food system.
Tomi Engdahl says:
We must change food production to save the world, says leaked report
Cutting carbon from transport and energy ‘not enough’ IPCC finds
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/03/ipcc-land-use-food-production-key-to-climate-crisis-leaked-report
Tomi Engdahl says:
Less Meat, More Plants: The Food We Eat Is Driving Global Warming, UN Report Finds
https://www.forbes.com/sites/isabeltogoh/2019/08/08/less-meat-more-plants-the-food-we-eat-is-driving-global-warming-un-report-finds/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Gordie/#676f7264696
Tomi Engdahl says:
While the shared electric scooter schemes claim to be carbon-free, a new study finds they are more carbon-intensive than a ride in a diesel-powered bus or an electric moped.
Shared Electric Scooters Worse For Climate Than Riding A Moped – Study
http://on.forbes.com/6185EFEdS
The scooter schemes have been controversial. Critics say they are resulting in many injuries and even deaths, and that they are becoming a new form of urban litter as they block sidewalks for pedestrians. Now, a new study is introducing a new criticism targeting one of the scheme’s main selling points – the idea that scooters are good for the environment.
The manufacturing process accounts for about half of the scooter’s emissions. The other half is emitted in the gathering and recharging process.
Tomi Engdahl says:
http://www.maaseutumedia.fi/professorit-ipccn-ilmastohysteria-on-uskonto-ilman-loogisuutta/.XU0AjzbDLw8.facebook
Tomi Engdahl says:
https://hackaday.com/2019/08/05/a-trillion-trees-how-hard-can-it-be/