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.

893 Comments

  1. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Here’s how scientists want to cool down Europe’s buildings without expensive and energy intensive air conditioners https://bit.ly/3sI0g9W

    Reply
  2. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The Islands With Too Much Power
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UmsfXWzvEA

    The Orkney Islands, off the northern tip of Scotland, have so much electricity that it’s actually a problem. Here’s why: and here’s what they’re doing about it.

    Reply
  3. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Greenhouse gas emissions from global electricity production are now higher than they were before the coronavirus pandemic, suggesting that countries are failing to take the opportunity to “build back better” from the economic downturn, a new report has revealed.

    With Emissions Rising, Why Are Nations ‘Building Back Badly’ From The Pandemic?
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/08/25/with-emissions-rising-why-are-nations-building-back-badly-from-the-pandemic/?sh=4fa29d7930c1&utm_campaign=socialflowForbesMainFB&utm_medium=social&utm_source=ForbesMainFacebook

    Reply
  4. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Climate Change Accelerating Disruptions To El Niño And La Niña
    https://www.iflscience.com/environment/climate-change-accelerating-disruptions-to-el-nino-and-la-nina/

    “The latest IPCC report shows clearly that if we do not drastically curb our emissions, we will head towards temperatures that Earth has not seen in millions of years,” co-author on both studies Malte Stuecker, from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, said in a statement.

    “Moreover, we can now say with certainty that all of the global warming that occurred since the mid-19th century is due to human activity. While these are sobering facts, we should certainly not despair. In fact, if societies choose a pathway of large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions now, the report also shows that we will avoid the worst possible future outcomes and Earth will experience only moderate additional warming over this century that we can likely adapt to.”

    Reply
  5. Tomi Engdahl says:

    New Research Links Air Pollution To Increased Mental Health Service Use
    https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/new-research-links-air-pollution-to-increased-mental-health-service-use/

    Data from almost 14,000 people shows a possible link between exposure to traffic-related air pollution and mental illness severity. The research is the first to show this link.

    As reported in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the team found that residential exposure to particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen oxides such as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is associated with higher usage of mental health services use by people recently diagnosed with psychotic and mood disorders.

    Reply
  6. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The United States has lost $1.4 trillion from weather-related disasters since 1970, the WMO said, accounting for more than a third of global losses.

    Weather-Related Disasters Skyrocketed Fivefold Over Past 50 Years, Says U.N. Weather Agency
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/09/01/weather-related-disasters-skyrocketed-fivefold-over-past-50-years-says-un-weather-agency/?utm_campaign=forbes&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Gordie&sh=6df35c4a58e9

    Reply
  7. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Small changes in diet can yield substantial gains for the environment and human health
    https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210818/Small-changes-in-diet-can-yield-substantial-gains-for-the-environment-and-human-health.aspx

    Eating a hot dog could cost you 36 minutes of healthy life, while choosing to eat a serving of nuts instead could help you gain 26 minutes of extra healthy life, according to a University of Michigan study.

    The study, published in the journal Nature Food, evaluated more than 5,800 foods, ranking them by their nutritional disease burden to humans and their impact on the environment. It found that substituting 10% of daily caloric intake from beef and processed meats for a mix of fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and select seafood could reduce your dietary carbon footprint by one-third and allow people to gain 48 minutes of healthy minutes per day.

    “Generally, dietary recommendations lack specific and actionable direction to motivate people to change their behavior, and rarely do dietary recommendations address environmental impacts,”

    Reply
  8. Tomi Engdahl says:

    It’s pointless to argue about whether we should use geoengineering to cool the planet unless we have data on both benefits and risks. Here’s that much-needed research on brightening clouds.
    https://spectrum.ieee.org/climate-change

    Reply
  9. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The truth about capturing CO2 to reverse climate change
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PraDOusY87g

    arbon capture and storage is often brought up as a solution to climate change, but do we really need it, how much of an impact could it really make, and is it in fact just an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels … letting heavy polluting industries off the hook? It’s time to find out the truth.

    Reply
  10. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The paper bottle says “I’m a paper bottle” on the front and has a plastic bottle inside: https://ifls.online/3yX25Bk

    Reply
  11. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Kotimaiseen metsityskohteeseen kompensoitu painotuote ei ole hiilineutraali painotuote – vielä
    https://www.punamusta.com/blogi/kotimaiseen-kohteeseen-kompensoitu-painotuote-ei-ole-hiilineutraali-painotuote-viela/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=mainonta&utm_campaign=kompensointiblogi

    Meiltä kysytään toisinaan, miksi hiilineutraalin painotuotteemme kompensointikohteet eivät ole kotimaisia. Vastaus on: Koska kotimaiseen hankkeeseen ”kompensoitu” painotuote ei todellisuudessa ole hiilineutraali.

    Kaikki Suomessa kasvava metsä lasketaan Suomen valtion päästövähennystavoitteiden saavuttamisen hyväksi. Siksi kotimaiset vapaaehtoiset metsityshankkeet tai metsien lisäkasvuun perustuvat ilmastohankkeet ovat tällä hetkellä aina kaksoislaskentaa yritysten käyttäessä niitä vapaaehtoiseen kompensointiin tai hiilineutraalisuusväittämiin.

    YKSI YHDESSÄ ISTUTETTU PUU EI MUUTU RAPORTOINNILLA KAHDEKSI
    Hiilineutraali painotuote syntyy, kun ensin tunnetaan painotuotteen valmistuksen aiheuttamat päästöt paperinvalmistuksesta ja painotoiminnasta aina kuljetukseen saakka. Sitten tehdään jatkuvaa työtä päästöjen minimoimiseksi ja lopulta kompensoidaan vähäiset jäljelle jäävät päästöt. Jäljelle jäävien päästöjen neutralointia ilmastohankkeiden avulla kutsutaan siis kompensoinniksi. Kompensoitu tuote tai toiminta on ilmaston kannalta täysin hiilineutraalia.

    Kompensoinnissa tärkeänä periaatteena on, että ilmastohankkeiden kautta aikaansaatuja hiilinieluja tai päästövähenemiä ei lasketa useaan kertaan.

    Se, että metsitys lasketaan hiilinieluksi kaksi kertaa kahden eri tahon toimesta ei tuplaa hiilidioksidimäärää, jonka metsä kykenee vähentämään ilmakehästä, vaan kyse on kaksoislaskennasta.

    RATKAISUJA POHDITAAN KANSAINVÄLISELLÄ TASOLLA
    Kotimaisten metsityshankkeiden tukeminen on ehdottomasti ilmastoteko, vaikka asiantuntijoiden keskuudessa vallitseekin vahva yhteisymmärrys, ettei kotimaisista metsityshankkeista voida puhua kompensointina kaksoislaskennan takia.

    Ratkaisua ongelmaan pohditaan tällä hetkellä muun muassa ympäristöministeriössä sekä kansainvälisellä tasolla, sillä Suomi ei ole ainoa kaksoislaskennan ongelman kanssa painiva valtio.

    PunaMusta Media on allekirjoittanut Finnwatchin vetoomuksen, jossa vaaditaan ripeitä toimia, jotta Suomeen saadaan muodostettua aidon ilmastovaikutuksen varmistavat päästökompensaatiomarkkinat.

    Reply
  12. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Kolumni: Älä syyllistä ”ilmastopahista”
    Petteri TaalasIlmastonmuutoksen ratkaisuhalukkuus on tullut positiivisena yllätyksenä meteorologian asiantuntijoille, kirjoittaa Petteri Taalas.
    https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/e7c0912d-9a80-4320-ae3f-be3a6bb7f17c

    Reply
  13. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Comment from https://m.facebook.com/groups/983759965442123/permalink/1203808193437298/

    The earth is a reflection of how we treat life on earth. Killing life on earth, kills life on earth. Eating 70 billion land animals a year is not sustainable. The path to sustainability is peace. The path to peace is peace itself. Killing another mammal is the next violent act behind killing a human.

    Reply
  14. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Air pollution is the single largest environmental health risk in Europe, responsible for around 400,000 premature deaths per year. The NEMO Project, which comprises a consortium of 18 European partners, promises to tackle this problem by measuring emissions and noise from individual road vehicles in real time.
    Read more
    https://bit.ly/39nmg0K
    #ResearchImpactEU

    Reply
  15. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Digitalization may cut carbon emissions from construction
    https://www.bworldonline.com/digitalization-may-cut-carbon-emissions-from-construction/

    CONSTRUCTION FIRMS must consider using modern technologies and digital systems if they want to lessen carbon emissions and become more productive, according to a Finnish-based startup that develops artificial intelligence (AI) technologies.

    “Making more use of modern technologies would make the construction industry more profitable and have better productivity, which would also decrease the carbon dioxide emissions of the industry,” Aku Wilenius, chief executive officer and co-founder of Caidio, told BusinessWorld through a public relations firm last week.

    For him, the use of automated, digital quality control systems can lessen concrete waste. He added that there was a need to adopt digital working methods, tools and technologies to overcome the sector’s “relatively low profitability and productivity.”

    “Today, most of the tasks in construction are implemented very traditionally by using manual working methods,” Mr. Wilenius said.

    Reply
  16. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Pádraig Belton / The Guardian:
    As TSMC pledges to reach net zero emissions by 2050, a look at how the semiconductor industry is tackling its huge carbon footprint and resource consumption — As demand for chips surges, the semicondutor industry is trying to grapple with its huge carbon foot print — he semiconductor industry has a problem.

    The computer chip industry has a dirty climate secret
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/18/semiconductor-silicon-chips-carbon-footprint-climate

    As demand for chips surges, the semicondutor industry is trying to grapple with its huge carbon foot print

    The semiconductor industry has a problem. Demand is booming for silicon chips, which are embedded in everything from smartphones and televisions to wind turbines, but it comes at a big cost: a huge carbon footprint.

    The industry presents a paradox. Meeting global climate goals will, in part, rely on semiconductors. They’re integral to electric vehicles, solar arrays and wind turbines. But chip manufacturing also contributes to the climate crisis. It requires huge amounts of energy and water – a chip fabrication plant, or fab, can use millions of gallons of water a day – and creates hazardous waste.

    As the semiconductor industry finds itself increasingly under the spotlight, it is starting to grapple with its climate impacts. Last week Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s largest chipmaker, which supplies chips to Apple, pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2050. The company aims to “broaden our green influence and drive the industry towards low-carbon sustainability”, said the TSMC chairman, Mark Lui.

    But decarbonizing the industry will be a big challenge.

    TSMC alone uses almost 5% of all Taiwan’s electricity, according to figures from Greenpeace, predicted to rise to 7.2% in 2022, and it used about 63m tons of water in 2019. The company’s water use became a controversial topic during Taiwan’s drought this year, the country’s worst in a half century, which pitted chipmakers against farmers.

    In the US, a single fab, Intel’s 700-acre campus in Ocotillo, Arizona, produced nearly 15,000 tons of waste in the first three months of this year, about 60% of it hazardous. It also consumed 927m gallons of fresh water, enough to fill about 1,400 Olympic swimming pools, and used 561m kilowatt-hours of energy.

    Chip manufacturing, rather than energy consumption or hardware use, “accounts for most of the carbon output” from electronics devices, the Harvard researcher Udit Gupta and co-authors wrote in a 2020 paper.

    A global shortage of high-end chips, as the pandemic boosted demand for electronics and Covid outbreaks closed fabs, has increased focus on the industry.

    Reply
  17. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Raportti: Näin konkreettisesti ilmaston­muutos vaikuttaa sinun alueellasi https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000008282579.html

    Reply
  18. Tomi Engdahl says:

    “There is now a much stronger body of evidence to show how air pollution affects different aspects of health at even lower concentrations than previously understood.”

    WHO Slashes Safe Air Pollution Levels As New Evidence Highlights Health Risks
    https://www.iflscience.com/environment/who-slashes-safe-air-pollution-levels-as-new-evidence-highlights-health-risks/

    Reply
  19. Tomi Engdahl says:

    EU:n komission esitys toisi Suomelle jättimäiset lisämenot
    https://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/eun-komission-esitys-toisi-suomelle-jattimaiset-lisamenot/e9780b5c-4d80-4c72-8baa-788429300d32?ref=facebook%3Acf56

    Euroopan unionin komissio julkaisi heinäkuussa massiivisen ”Fit for 55”– ilmastopakettinsa. Komission esitys kattaa yksityiskohtaisuuteen asti erilaisia toimia, joilla yritetään taklata maailman lämpenemistä ja uhkaavaa ympäristökatastrofia.

    Jo kesällä oli selvää, että vaikka tavoitteesta oltiin yhtä mieltä, neuvottelut paketin asiasisällöstä tulevat olemaan vaikeat jäsenmaiden, komission sekä parlamentin välillä.

    Komission vaatimukset ovat energiankulutuksen vähentämiseksi todella kovat. Hallitus arvioi, että pelkästään julkiselle sektorille kohdistuva kiinteistöjen kolmen prosentin peruskorjausvaade tulisi aiheuttamaan 3,8 miljardin euron lisäkustannukset joka vuosi aina vuoteen 2030 asti.

    Ehdotuksessa asetetaan peruskorjausten vaatimustasoksi uudisrakentamisen lähes nollaenergiarakennus sekä poistetaan kaikki nykyiset joustot ja vaihtoehdot.

    Korjausvelvoitteen uusi soveltamisala nostaa Suomessa sen piirissä olevan rakennusalan nykyisestä 0,9 miljoonasta 56 miljoonaan neliömetriin. Jopa historialliset ja suojellut rakennukset sekä kirkot tulevat direktiiviehdotuksessa nollaenergiatason peruskorjausvelvoitteen piiriin.

    Suomen käyttämä vaihtoehto, jossa korjauksia vastaava energiansäästö saavutetaan muilla toimilla on poistettu.

    Hallituksen alustavan laskelman mukaan direktiivi rajaisi Suomen vuoden 2030 energian loppukäytön noin 255 terawattituntiin, kun se edellisenä ”normivuonna” 2019 oli 301 terawattituntia. Tavoite tarkoittaisi siten 40–45 terawattitunnin vähentämistä energiankäytössä vuosiena 2024–2030.

    Esimerkiksi kansallisessa energia- ja ilmastosuunnitelmassa asetetut vuoden 2030 tavoitteet ovat energian loppukäytölle 290 terawattituntia. Tätä pelkästään on pidetty haastavana, kun samaan aikaan erityisesti teollisuuden rakennemuutos vaatisi valtavaa sähkön käytön kasvattamista.

    Reply
  20. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Presidentti Niinistö käyttää ilmastonmuutoksesta yhtä kovaa kieltä kuin Elokapina, mutta hallitusohjelmasta ei samaa termiä löydy
    Ilmastohätätilasta puhuvat nyt monet toimijat. Mutta miten se näkyy hallitusohjelmassa?
    https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/45ef2e8b-9390-4be5-b3d7-452d678b0c6b

    – Ei ole liioiteltua todeta, että meillä on edessämme maailmanlaajuinen ilmastohätätila. Ja kaikesta tästä huolimatta tilanteen kiireellisyys ei näy tekojemme tasolla.

    Näin sanoi tasavallan presidentti Sauli Niinistö puheessaan YK:n yleiskokouksessa New Yorkissa viime viikolla.

    Reply
  21. Tomi Engdahl says:

    The surprising downsides to planting trillions of trees
    Large tree-planting initiatives often fail — and some have even fueled deforestation. There’s a better way.
    https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/22679378/tree-planting-forest-restoration-climate-solutions

    “By planting millions of young trees, the nation is working to foster a new, lush green Turkey,” Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, said when he kicked off the project in Ankara.

    Less than three months later, up to 90 percent of the saplings were dead, the Guardian reported. The trees were planted at the wrong time and there wasn’t enough rainfall to support the saplings, the head of the country’s agriculture and forestry trade union told the paper.

    In the past two decades, mass tree-planting campaigns like this one have gained popularity as a salve for many of our modern woes, from climate change to the extinction crisis. Companies and billionaires love these kinds of initiatives. So do politicians. Really, what’s not to like about trees? They suck up carbon emissions naturally while providing resources for wildlife and humans — and they’re even nice to look at. It sounds like a win-win-win.

    There’s just one problem: These campaigns often don’t work, and sometimes they can even fuel deforestation.

    In one recent study in the journal Nature, for example, researchers examined long-term restoration efforts in northern India, a country that has invested huge amounts of money into planting over the last 50 years. The authors found “no evidence” that planting offered substantial climate benefits or supported the livelihoods of local communities.

    Instead of focusing on planting huge numbers of trees, experts told Vox, we should focus on growing trees for the long haul, protecting and restoring ecosystems beyond just forests, and empowering the local communities that are best positioned to care for them.

    The authors of the Science paper originally argued that restoring trees is “our most effective climate change solution to date” and said there’s “room” for 900 million hectares (2.2 billion acres) of new trees across the world. Almost 600 media outlets (including Vox) ran stories about the study in 2019, according to Carbon Brief.

    While many scientists criticized the paper, the idea behind it — that we can plant our way out of climate change, while simultaneously solving other problems like biodiversity loss — has stuck around. It’s a charming notion that’s much easier for companies or countries to act on, compared with doing the hard work of slashing greenhouse emissions.

    Many tree-planting projects fail
    Tree-planting campaigns are typically well-intentioned, but they often fall short of delivering the benefits they promise, from capturing carbon to providing refuge for rare species. “Large-scale tree planting programs have high failure rates,”

    An analysis of satellite imagery and interviews with hundreds of households, however, revealed that decades of planting by the government — amounting to hundreds of millions of seedlings — “had almost no impact on forest canopy cover,” Fleischman wrote on Twitter.

    What went wrong? Some of the trees may have died quickly because they were planted in poor-quality habitat, Fleischman suspects. Farm animals could have also destroyed the saplings if they were planted in former grazing lands, he said. “Well-resourced forest restoration programs can fail to achieve their goals,” he added. “We need to be more skeptical of big claims.”

    In other parts of the world, tree-planting projects didn’t just fail, but also harmed existing ecosystems or ways of life.

    Reply
  22. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Maailman pahin kasvihuonekaasu = 23 500 x CO2 – Huvikseen videoitu koe vapautti päästöjä kuin 300 000 km autolla: Metallivuoka kellui tyhjän päällä, kuin magiaa
    Tuomas Kangasniemi5.10.202108:30|päivitetty6.10.202109:56TIEDEYMPÄRISTÖILMASTONMUUTOSVIDEO
    https://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/uutiset/maailman-pahin-kasvihuonekaasu-23-500-x-co2-huvikseen-videoitu-koe-vapautti-paastoja-kuin-300-000-km-autolla-metallivuoka-kellui-tyhjan-paalla-kuin-magiaa/7c6edb44-eb5c-468e-ae05-240dddffcadc

    Rikkiheksafluoridi on maailman pahin kasvihuonekaasu. Sille on käyttöä sekä teollisuudessa että tieteellisissä hupiesityksissä

    Rikkiheksafluoridi on hajuton, mauton, väritön ja myrkytön kaasu. Kemiallisesti se on hyvin inerttiä eli heikosti reagoivaa ja hyvin stabiilia, vaikkakaan ei aivan typpeen tai jalokaasuihin verrattavissa.

    Rikkiheksafluoridista suurin osa käytetään korkeajännitteisten muuntajien ja kytkinten eristekaasuna, sillä se eristää sähköä selvästi paremmin kuin ilma. Viime vuosina käyttöä on kuitenkin pyritty rajoittamaan

    https://youtu.be/iQWtZd8jM3g

    Vastauksen laskeminen perustuu lämmityspotentiaaliin ja videoon itseensä. SF₆-astiana oleva akvaario näyttää mittojensa perusteella noin 200-litraiselta. Niinpä rikkiheksafluoridia käytettiin noin 1200 grammaa.

    Massaperusteinen gwp-luku 23 500 tarkoittaa, että tämä vastaa noin 28 tonnia hiilidioksidia. Nykyisille bensa-autoille tyypillisellä päästöluvulla 100 grammaa hiilidioksidia kilometrille tästä tulisi 280 000 km. Koska akvaarion koko on vain arvio, ja autojakin erilaisia, tulos pyöristetään 300 000:een.

    Toisin sanoen tv-ohjelman parin minuutin demonstraatio tuotti kasvihuonepäästöjä melko tavallisen auton koko käyttöiän pakokaasujen verran.

    Rikkiheksafluoridin inerttiys johtuu ennen kaikkea samasta tekijästä kuin tetrafluorimetaanin ja teflonmuovin reagoimattomuus. Kaikissa näissä yhdisteissä fluoriatomit muodostavat keskusatomin (rikki tai hiili) ympärille aukottoman fluoriatomien ulkokuoren, jonka läpi mikään ei pääse horjuttamaan fluorin ja keskusatomin välisiä sidoksia.

    Reply
  23. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Is Concrete The Most Destructive Material On Earth? – Cheddar Explains
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsSE0DlxKGQ

    Concrete has given rise to modern life. It’s so ubiquitous and takes so many forms that it might be easy to forget about. Yet now there is increasing pressure to change the way we use and make concrete. As cities warm and flood, as biodiversity is reduced and as water becomes more scarce worldwide – a portion of the blame is increasingly placed on concrete, the seemingly invisible foundation for our world.

    Reply
  24. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Fossil fuel industry gets subsidies of $11m a minute, IMF finds
    Trillions of dollars a year are ‘adding fuel to the fire’ of the climate crisis, experts say
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies-of-11m-dollars-a-minute-imf-finds

    The fossil fuel industry benefits from subsidies of $11m every minute, according to analysis by the International Monetary Fund.

    The IMF found the production and burning of coal, oil and gas was subsidised by $5.9tn in 2020, with not a single country pricing all its fuels sufficiently to reflect their full supply and environmental costs. Experts said the subsidies were “adding fuel to the fire” of the climate crisis, at a time when rapid reductions in carbon emissions were urgently needed.

    Explicit subsidies that cut fuel prices accounted for 8% of the total and tax breaks another 6%. The biggest factors were failing to make polluters pay for the deaths and poor health caused by air pollution (42%) and for the heatwaves and other impacts of global heating (29%).

    The G20 agreed in 2009 to phase out “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies and in 2016, the G7 set a deadline of 2025, but little progress has been made. In July, a report showed that the G20 countries had subsidised fossil fuels by trillions of dollars since 2015, the year the Paris climate deal was reached.

    “To stabilise global temperatures we must urgently move away from fossil fuels instead of adding fuel to the fire,” said Mike Coffin, senior analyst at the thinktank Carbon Tracker. “It’s critical that governments stop propping up an industry that is in decline, and look to accelerate the low-carbon energy transition, and our future, instead.

    Reply
  25. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Creating Methane From Captured Carbon Dioxide And The Future Of Carbon Capture
    https://hackaday.com/2021/10/07/creating-methane-from-captured-carbon-dioxide-and-the-future-of-carbon-capture/

    There’s something intrinsically simple about the concept of carbon (CO2) capture: you simply have the CO2 molecules absorbed or adsorbed by something, after which you separate the thus captured CO2 and put it somewhere safe. Unfortunately, in physics and chemistry what seems easy and straightforward tends to be anything but simple, let alone energy efficient. While methods for carbon capture have been around for decades, making it economically viable has always been a struggle.

    This is true both for carbon capture and storage/sequestration (CCS) as well as carbon capture and utilization (CCU). Whereas the former seeks to store and ideally permanently remove (sequester) carbon from the atmosphere, the latter captures carbon dioxide for use in e.g. industrial processes.

    Reply
  26. Tomi Engdahl says:

    ”Uusiutuvaa energiaa ei olekaan”, sanovat tutkijat, joiden mukaan ilmasto­toimemme aiheuttavat sortoa ja päästöjä köyhissä maissa
    Etelän köyhiä maita käytetään aurinkopaneelitehtaana ja suojelukohteena pohjoisen tarpeisiin, tutkijat sanovat.
    https://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/art-2000008307638.html

    ILMASTOTOIMET etenevät kansainvälisissä kokouksissa, Afrikkaan ja Amazonille kaavaillaan luonnonsuojelualueita ja sijoitukset uusiutuvaan energiaan kasvavat nopeasti.

    Ilmastonmuutoksen pysäyttäminen on kansainvälisen politiikan ykkösaiheita, mutta samalla yltyy arvostelu valittuja keinoja kohtaan.

    Helsingin yliopiston globaalin kehityksen tutkimuksen professori Barry Gills ja Oslon yliopiston kehitys- ja ympäristökeskuksen tutkijatohtori Alexander Dunlap kuuluvat joukkoon asiantuntijoita, joiden mielestä ilmasto- ja ympäristötoimista on tullut taas yksi areena, jolla rikkaat pohjoisen maat alistavat globaalia etelää ja rakentavat lisää saastuttavaa tuotantoa.

    ”Luonnonsuojeluakin voi käyttää sorron välineenä”, Dunlap sanoo.

    ”Vihreän siirtymän taustalla on länsimaalainen ja kolonialistinen maailmankuva.”

    Esimerkiksi uusiutuvaan energiaan siirtyminen ollaan nyt Dunlapin mukaan toteuttamassa käytännössä kuten mikä vain kapitalistinen hanke: EU:ssa ja Yhdysvalloissa käytettävien aurinkopaneelien ja sähköautojen akkuihin tarvittavat raaka-aineet tuotetaan fossiilisten polttoaineiden avulla erittäin huonoissa työoloissa Afrikassa ja Etelä-Amerikassa.

    Dunlap on mukana tällä viikolla julkaistussa raportissa, jossa lasketaan niin sanottujen uusiutuvan energian teknologioiden vaatima kaivosteollisuuden ja tuotannon määrä maailmassa.

    ”Se on valtava. Siirtyminen tuulivoimaan ja aurinkoenergiaan teollisella skaalalla vaatii aivan käsittämättömän määrän kaivosteollisuutta. Eikä kukaan edes lupaa pysäyttää energiankulutusta nykytasolle, vaan tavoitteena on yhä talouden kasvu. Se tarkoittaa aina vain lisää aurinko- ja tuulivoimaloiden tuotantoa”, Dunlap sanoo.

    ‘Green mining’ is a myth: EU must slash resource consumption by two-thirds – new study
    https://eeb.org/green-mining-is-a-myth-eu-must-slash-resource-consumption-by-two-thirds-new-study/

    PRESS RELEASE

    New analysis suggests the EU must ditch plans under its European Green Deal to increase mining and set hard limits to the natural resources it extracts in order to prevent human and ecological disaster.
    European Green Deal plans will fail to stop runaway mining, creating further permanent damage to the environment and wreaking havoc on human rights. The EU must reduce extraction of natural resources by 65%, according to a new study released today by Friends of the Earth Europe and the European Environmental Bureau. [1]
    The report shows that the EU is already extracting and consuming a dangerous proportion of the world’s limited resources, with serious consequences:

    The EU material footprint [2] is currently 14.5 tonnes per capita, about double what is considered a sustainable and just limit, and well over the global average.
    The EU alone already uses between 70% and 97% of the global environmentally ‘safe operating space’ related to resource extraction impacts. Any resource extraction beyond this ‘safe’ threshold threatens the stable functioning of the earth’s biophysical systems.
    More environmental defenders are killed for opposing mining than opposing any other industry. 50 of the 212 environmental defenders killed worldwide in 2019 were campaigning to stop mining projects.

    Yet European Green Deal plans are continuing on the path of ‘consumption as usual’, meaning enormous increases in mining for certain metals and minerals. For example batteries, primarily for electric vehicles, are predicted to drive up EU demand for lithium by almost 6000% by 2050.
    Supplying such demand will inevitably lead to scarcity, conflicts and destructive mining, closely resembling social and environmental harms from digging up fossil fuels. The answer here is not simply to replace cars running on fossil fuels with electric cars – it is to also reduce private car use overall. [3]
    These issues demonstrate that the green transition must be used as an opportunity to tackle the root causes of the broader climate and environmental crises – an economic system which drives overconsumption and social inequities in all sectors. As an urgent first step, the EU must set a material footprint reduction target of 65%.

    Reply
  27. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Professori lataa suorat sanat: Ihminen on runnellut Suomen luontoa lopullisesti – ”koskemattomuus” on pelkkä myytti
    – Mielestäni on hyvä vähän ravistella ja herätä siihen todellisuuteen, jossa me elämme, kertoo Helsingin yliopiston ympäristömuutoksen professori Iltalehdelle
    https://www.iltalehti.fi/kotimaa/a/135efd92-fe2e-4d12-804a-971f8c829fd5

    Reply
  28. Tomi Engdahl says:

    HERE’S HOW WE COULD BRIGHTEN CLOUDS TO COOL THE EARTH
    “Ship tracks” over the ocean reveal a new strategy to fight climate change
    https://spectrum.ieee.org/climate-change

    Reply
  29. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Creating Methane From Captured Carbon Dioxide And The Future Of Carbon Capture
    https://hackaday.com/2021/10/07/creating-methane-from-captured-carbon-dioxide-and-the-future-of-carbon-capture/

    There’s something intrinsically simple about the concept of carbon (CO2) capture: you simply have the CO2 molecules absorbed or adsorbed by something, after which you separate the thus captured CO2 and put it somewhere safe. Unfortunately, in physics and chemistry what seems easy and straightforward tends to be anything but simple, let alone energy efficient. While methods for carbon capture have been around for decades, making it economically viable has always been a struggle.

    This is true both for carbon capture and storage/sequestration (CCS) as well as carbon capture and utilization (CCU). Whereas the former seeks to store and ideally permanently remove (sequester) carbon from the atmosphere, the latter captures carbon dioxide for use in e.g. industrial processes.

    Recently, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has announced a breakthrough CCU concept, involving using a new amine-based solvent (2-EEMPA) that is supposed to be not only more efficient than e.g. the previously commonly used MEA, but also compatible with directly creating methane in the same process.

    Reply
  30. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Led by France, 10 EU countries call on Brussels to label nuclear energy as green source
    https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/11/led-by-france-10-eu-countries-call-on-brussels-to-label-nuclear-energy-as-green-source

    A group of ten EU countries, led by France, have asked the European Commission to recognise nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source that should be part of the bloc’s decades-long transition towards climate neutrality.

    Tapping into Europe’s ongoing energy crunch, the countries make the case for nuclear energy as a “key affordable, stable and independent energy source” that could protect EU consumers from being “exposed to the volatility of prices”.

    The letter, which was initiated by France, has been sent to the Commission with the signature of nine other EU countries, most of which already count nuclear as part of their national energy mix: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Romania.

    Nuclear plants generate over 26% of the electricity produced in the European Union.

    “The rise of energy prices have also shown how important is it to reduce our energy dependence on third countries as fast as possible,” says the letter, as seen by Euronews.

    Over 90% of the EU’s natural gas come from foreign importers, with Russia as the main producer. This great dependency has been credited as one of the main factors behind the rise in energy prices.

    Despite the urgency to combat climate change, member states are still unable to reach a consensus on whether nuclear constitutes a green or dirty energy source. The Commission has postponed the crucial decision to let countries conclude the debate.

    On the one side, Germany, which plans to shut down all its reactors by 2022, is leading the anti-nuclear cause, together with Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Spain.

    “We are concerned that including nuclear power in the taxonomy would permanently damage its integrity, credibility and therefore its usefulness,” they wrote in July.

    On the other side, France, which obtains over 70% of its electricity from nuclear stations, is fighting to label nuclear as sustainable under the taxonomy.

    “While renewable energy sources play a key role for our energy transition, they cannot produce enough low-carbon electricity to meet our needs, at a sufficient and a constant level,” the letter says, describing nuclear power as a “safe and innovative” sector with the potential of sustaining one million high-qualified jobs “in the near future”.

    A report from the Commission’s research unit released earlier this year indicates Brussels could eventually side with the pro-nuclear team. The paper says greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear plants are “comparable” to those released by hydropower and wind, an assessment shared by the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United States Department of Energy.

    Critics, however, argue the resulting radioactive waste is harmful to human health and the environment. “Nuclear power is incredibly expensive, hazardous and slow to build,” says Greenpeace.

    Detractors are concerned about potentially disastrous nuclear accidents, similar to those of Chernobyl in 1986 or Fukushima in 2011

    The debate shows no sign of an early resolution. The Commission says a decision around nuclear is expected before the end of the year, although, given the profound disagreements, it might spill over into next year.

    Reply
  31. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Jättiselvitys: nämä maat ovat suurimmassa vastuussa ilmastonmuutoksesta
    Tuoreessa analyysissä on selvitetty eri maiden vastuita hiilidioksidipäästöistä vuosina 1850–2021.
    https://www.iltalehti.fi/ulkomaat/a/b4ff4caa-77cc-496c-ac5a-82e4e79a9289

    Suurimmat saastuttajamaat ovat aiheuttaneet valtavan määrän hiilidioksidipäästöjä.
    Suomen osuus hiilidioksidipäästöistä on väkilukuun suhteutettuna maailman korkeimpia.
    Ilmasto-oikeudenmukaisuutta ei ole helppoa saavuttaa.

    Yhdysvallat on ylivoimaisesti eniten hiilidioksidipäästöjä aiheuttanut valtio menneen 171 vuoden aikana, käy ilmi ilmastokysymyksiin erikoistuneen Carbon Briefin analyysistä. USA:n osuus ajanjakson kokonaispäästöistä on 20 prosenttia.

    Kiinan 2000-luvulla räjähdysmäisesti kasvaneet päästöt ovat nostaneet sen historiallisessakin vertailussa jo toiseksi, vastuuseen 11 prosentista tarkastelujakson kokonaispäästöistä.

    Viiden eniten saastuttavan valtion joukkoon mahtuvat lisäksi Venäjä, Brasilia ja Indonesia.

    Vuodesta 1850 lukien ihmiset ovat aiheuttaneet noin 2500 miljardin tonnin hiilidioksidipäästöt ilmakehään. Niin kutsuttua hiilibudjettia on jäljellä alle 500 gigatonnia, jotta 1,5 celsiusasteen tavoite toteutuu. Yksi gigatonni vastaa miljardia tonnia.

    Vuoden 2021 loppuun mennessä maailma on siis kollektiivisesti käyttänyt yli 85 prosenttia hiilibudjetistaan. Hiilibudjetilla tarkoitetaan sitä määrää hiilidioksidipäästöjä, joita ilmakehään voi päästää ilman, että se estää tiettyä asetettua ilmastotavoitetta toteutumasta, kuten Pariisin ilmastosopimuksessa sovitun lämpenemisen rajaamisen 1,5 asteeseen.

    Analyysin mukaan päästöjen ajankohdalla on ainoastaan rajallinen merkitys sille, kuinka paljon ilmasto lämpenee. Tämä tarkoittaa sitä, että hiilidioksidipäästöt satojenkin vuosien takaa jatkavat planeetan lämmittämistä. Sen takia niin kutsuttujen kumulatiivisten eli kaikkia historian aikana ilmastoa vahingoittaneiden päästöjen tarkastelu on merkityksellistä.

    Suomen kumulatiiviset päästöt suhteessa väkimäärään ovat maailman yhdenneksitoista korkeimmat. Sijoitus on kaikista Pohjoismaista korkein.

    – Ilmakehälle ja ilmastolle merkittävää ovat kumulatiiviset hiilidioksidipäästöt. Tilastot päästöistä asukasta kohden ovat kiinnostavia, mutta niitä ei tulisi tulkita ikään kuin maan osuutena kokonaisvastuusta ilmastonmuutokselle.

    Historiallinen vastuu ilmastonmuutoksesta on merkityksellistä myös, kun puhutaan ilmasto-oikeudenmukaisuudesta. Moni kehittyneistä maista on saavuttanut hyvinvointia muun muassa polttamalla fossiilisia polttoaineita.

    Ilmasto-oikeudenmukaisuuden yksi ajatus on, että suurin vastuu ilmastonmuutoksesta on hyvinvoivilla ja valtaapitävillä tahoilla, kun taas suhteettoman suuriksi kärsijöiksi joutuvat köyhät ja haavoittuvassa asemassa olevat. Taustalla on ajatus siitä, että ne jotka saastuttavat vähiten, kärsivät eniten.

    Yhä tukalammaksi muuttuvat elinolot johtavat tulevaisuudessa hyvin hankaliin olosuhteisiin juuri niille väestöryhmille, jotka vähiten ovat olleet osallisena ilmaston lämpenemiseen. Carbon Brief mainitsee raportissaan, että pahimmassa tapauksessa jopa yli 140 miljoonaa ihmistä joutuvat jättämään kotinsa vuoteen 2050 mennessä.

    Reply
  32. Tomi Engdahl says:

    To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, more than 700bn tonnes of carbon dioxide need to be removed from the atmosphere by 2100, says Oliver Morton, on “To a Lesser Degree” https://econ.st/3DwWKDo

    Going in reverse—how can greenhouse gas emissions be removed from the atmosphere?
    https://www.economist.com/podcasts/2021/10/11/going-in-reverse-how-can-greenhouse-gas-emissions-be-removed-from-the-atmosphere?utm_campaign=editorial-social&utm_medium=social-organic&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1jHbZrgLTnCfmM4pQWdehBDDe1qJNgXEPnzbP8kycVsfHNlS3jemh-sek

    LOWERING GREENHOUSE gas emissions won’t be enough to stop the world from overheating. Carbon needs to be sucked out of the atmosphere. But can that be done quickly enough — and on what scale?

    Nathalie Seddon of the Nature-Based Solutions Initiative explores the ways ecosystems can be enhanced to store carbon. And we go to Iceland to visit the world’s largest direct air capture facility that removes carbon from the air, which is then injected into volcanic rock.

    Reply
  33. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Carbon Sequestration As A Service Doesn’t Quite Add Up
    https://hackaday.com/2021/10/15/carbon-sequestration-as-a-service-doesnt-quite-add-up/

    Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. While most attempts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions focus on reducing the amount of CO2 output, there are other alternatives. Carbon capture and sequestration has been an active area of research for quite some time. Being able to take carbon dioxide straight out of the air and store it in a stable manner would allow us to reduce levels in the atmosphere and could make a big difference when it comes to climate change.

    A recent project by a company called Climeworks is claiming to be doing just that, and are running it as a subscription service. The company has just opened up its latest plant in Iceland, and hopes to literally suck greenhouses gases out of the air. Today, we’ll examine whether or not this technology is a viable tool in the fight against climate change.

    Reply
  34. Tomi Engdahl says:

    They Milk Cows, Don’t They?
    https://hackaday.com/2021/10/18/they-milk-cows-dont-they/

    What is Milk, Anyway?

    The stuff that Perfect Day pumps out is real milk, no doubt about it. As it turns out, milk is relatively easy to create — it consists of six proteins, plus some fats, sugars, and minerals, all in a water suspension.

    Even so, both the US and the UK have fairly restrictive definitions for ‘milk’, ‘cheese’, and ‘dairy’. In the US, the FDA currently defines milk as “the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows“, which sounds like it leaves no room for microbial fermentation. However, the FDA already approves of fermentation for cheeses and so on, so they’re kind of in a tight spot.

    Surely the dairy industry will lobby against lab-grown milk — they probably already are. But the dairy industry doesn’t really have a leg to stand on. It is wrought with problems, from over-milking cows to over-breeding them to routinely ripping cow families apart.

    Plus, the dairy industry is responsible for 4% of greenhouse gas emissions, which is more than shipping and aviation put together. Considering the climate crisis, it’s utterly ridiculous to impede progress on this front.

    Reply
  35. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Real milk, no cows needed: Lab-made dairy products are now a reality

    Milk, egg and other animal products can now be brewed in the lab using familiar fermentation processes, requiring regulators to reconsider what truly makes something “milk” or “cheese”

    Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25133470-900-real-milk-no-cows-needed-lab-made-dairy-products-are-now-a-reality/#ixzz79jU8xfjd

    Reply
  36. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Electric Vehicles, The Gasoline Problem, And Synthetic Fuels
    https://hackaday.com/2021/10/18/electric-vehicles-the-gasoline-problem-and-synthetic-fuels-part-1/

    When you’re standing at the gas station filling up your car, watching those digits on the pump flip by can be a sobering experience. Fuel prices, especially the price of gasoline, have always been keenly watched, so it’s hard to imagine a time when gasoline was a low-value waste product. But kerosene, sold mainly for lighting, was once king of the petroleum industry, at least before the automobile came along, to the extent that the gasoline produced while refining kerosene was simply dumped into streams to get rid of it.

    The modern mind perhaps shudders at the thought of an environmental crime of that magnitude, and we can’t imagine how anyone would think that was a good solution to the problem. And yet we now face much the same problem, as the increasing electrification of the world’s fleet of motor vehicles pushes down gasoline demand. To understand why this is a problem, we’ll start off by taking a look at how crude oil is formed, and how decreasing demand for gasoline may actually cause problems that we should think about before we get too far down the road.

    Put a Little Plankton in Your Tank

    When you fill the gas tank in your ICE or hybrid vehicle and start the engine, you’re closing a loop on chemical processes that started billions of years ago. The petrochemical fuel that powers most vehicles started as atmospheric carbon dioxide, greedily gobbled up by uncounted trillions of microscopic organisms like plankton, algae, and cyanobacteria via the process of photosynthesis, and locked into their biopolymers — lipids, carbohydrates, proteins, and nucleic acids.

    The hydrocarbons that are important in terms of motor fuels and lubricants tend to come from the middle of the thermal maturity range. Diesel, kerosene, and jet fuels tend to come from the C9 to C16 range, with longer carbon chains making up the heavy bunker oil used to fuel marine engines. On the shorter end, the C5 to C8 range hydrocarbons make up the bulk of gasoline, which is a complex blend of many different hydrocarbons, including straight-chain alkanes like hexane and octane, cycloalkanes, and any number of additives like ethers and alcohols, including ethanol.

    It’s important to note that any crude oil deposit is going to contain a mix of hydrocarbons. Some will be richer in hydrocarbon chains of one length than another, but in general, each deposit is going to have at least some of every fraction, from methane to bitumen.

    And that leads to the essential problem of petroleum extraction. While fuels like diesel and gasoline are highly engineered chemicals, they are not created from crude oil. Rather, they are refined from it. That might seem self-obvious, but it’s an important point. A typical barrel of crude oil contains about 40-50% gasoline (or more precisely, the C5 to C8 fractions that are blended into gasoline), and fully 84% of each barrel contains fuel-grade fractions, when you throw in diesel, kerosene, and bunker oil.

    This is the root of the gasoline problem. Right now, electric vehicles make up a tiny fraction of the total fleet — perhaps 3% worldwide. But at some point, through a combination of better engineering, political pressure, improved battery technology, and climate awareness, demand for electric vehicles is going to take off in a serious way. Some estimates peg the percentage of EVs on the road in 2040 at 58%, at least for passenger vehicles. That’s a huge number of vehicles that won’t be stopping by the local gas station to fill up every couple of days, meaning demand for gasoline will necessarily plummet.

    But, as we’ve seen, about half of every barrel of crude oil is gasoline. If we suddenly don’t need as much gasoline, the only way we can deal with the decreased demand is to not refine it from crude oil in the first place. That poses a problem if we still need any of the other fractions, which we likely will. Take diesel as an example. A 2019 report estimates that the medium and heavy truck fleet will only be about 4% electric by 2025, and that most of that will be trucks working local and regional delivery routes, mainly because of limitations in battery life. Long-haul trucks, though, will probably not be electrified for quite a while, meaning that crude oil will still have to be distilled to produce diesel to run them.

    The same problem applies to airplanes — unless battery technology improves drastically, we’ll still need to get to the kerosene that’s in crude oil. Add in the asphalt needed for road building, the heavy bunker fuel needed to keep cargo ships running, the lubricants needed to run pretty much anything mechanical, and the petroleum distillates that go into fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and plastics, and you’ve got a situation where everything in a barrel of oil is both useful and needed — except for gasoline, which happens to be the bulk of what’s in there.

    And so that’s the problem: roughly half of every barrel of crude oil that we pump out of the ground is made of something that’s destined to be useless, at least in a world dominated by electric vehicles. And that wouldn’t be so bad if the other 50% of each barrel didn’t contain stuff that’s so darn useful; otherwise, we could just leave the oil in the ground and call the problem solved. That may be the eventual solution, once everything that currently burns fuel is converted to some other power source, but in the meantime, we’ll either have to figure out what to do with the waste gasoline, or find a way to get the hydrocarbons we need some other way.

    Reply
  37. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Mark Bergen / Bloomberg:
    An in-depth look at Google’s “moonshot” plans to run entirely on clean energy by 2030, going beyond pledges by Apple, Amazon, and others — Sundar Pichai wants to head the first giant company run without emissions around the clock. It will take far more than money to achieve

    Google’s Biggest Moonshot Is Its Search for a Carbon-Free Future
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-10-17/google-s-new-green-campus-brings-sustainability-to-silicon-valley

    Sundar Pichai wants to head the first giant company run without emissions around the clock. It will take far more than money to achieve

    Google Bay View, the company’s newest campus, consists of three squat buildings nestled near the San Francisco Bay shoreline a few miles east of its headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. The first things visitors notice are the roofs.

    They curve down gently from pinched peaks, like circus tents, sloping almost to the ground. Each roof is blanketed with overlapping solar panels that glisten with a brushed metal sheen on the edges. Google calls this design Dragonscale, and indeed it looks as if a mystical beast is curled up by the water in Silicon Valley.

    Google envisions its latest campus as the embodiment of a grander ambition to run its operations entirely free of carbon. The company plans to open Bay View in January to “a limited number” of employees, depending on the pandemic. Beneath the buildings, thousands of concrete pillars plunged into the ground will serve as a sort of geothermal battery, storing heat to warm the building and water supply without natural gas. The roof panels were constructed with a unique textured glass to prevent glare and with canopies that emit a soft, glowing light into the spacious atria inside. “We call this the Cathedral of Work,” says Asim Tahir, who oversees energy decisions in Google’s real estate division. He stands by the southern entrance in a hard hat, mask, and safety vest.

    Reply
  38. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Kiinassa on meneillään energiakriisi, jonka vaikutukset uhkaavat tuntua täälläkin – “Tämä on yllättävän iso asia”, sanoo ekonomisti
    https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12149207

    Kiinan sähköpulan taustalla on hiilen hinnan kallistuminen. Valtaosa energiasta tuotetaan Kiinassa hiilivoimalla. Kriisi on herätys siitä, miten suuria ongelmia vahva hiiliriippuvuus aiheuttaa, arvioi analyytikko.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

*

*