I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[China]

Earth Needs Fewer People to Beat the Climate Crisis, Scientists Say

 

Forty years ago, scientists from 50 nations converged on Geneva to discuss what was then called the “CO2-climate problem.” At the time, with reliance on fossil fuels having helped trigger the 1979 oil crisis, they predicted global warming would eventually become a major environmental challenge.

 

The scientists got to work, building a strategy on how to attack the problem and laying the groundwork for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s preeminent body of climate scientists. Their goal was to get ahead of the problem before it was too late. But after a fast start, the fossil fuel industry, politics and the prioritization of economic growth over planetary health slowed them down. 

 

Now, four decades later, a larger group of scientists is sounding another, much more urgent alarm. More than 11,000 experts from around the world are calling for a critical addition to the main strategy of dumping fossil fuels for renewable energy: there needs to be far fewer humans on the planet.

 

“We declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency,” the scientists wrote in a stark warning published Tuesday in the journal BioScience.

 

While warnings about the consequences of unchecked climate change have become so commonplace as to inure the average news consumer, this latest communique is exceptionally significant given the data that accompanies it.

 

When absorbed in sequence, the charts lay out a devastating trend for planetary health. From meat consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and ice loss to sea-level rise and extreme weather events, they lay out a grim portrait of 40 years of squandered opportunities.

 

The scientists make specific calls for policymakers to quickly implement systemic change to energy, food, and economic policies. But they go one step further, into the politically fraught territory of population control. It “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity,” they write.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

we could start throwing volunteers into the volcanos.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

And crucifying the conscripts.

[The Evil Genius]

8 hours ago, twa said:

we could start throwing volunteers into the volcanos.

 

Ok Boomer.

[Destino]

Birth rates in much of the world are already below the replacement rate.  People that argue we need fewer people on this planet, should include exactly where they think population controls should be imposed and how.  They should also address how exactly the world will handle the impact of a declining population.  Saying we need less people is easy, but the problem is an extremely difficult one to even approach, let alone solve.

[TheGoodBits]

25 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Ok, Boomers.

fixed 

[twa]

3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Ok Boomer.

 

We could send them to Mars, but that seems counterproductive.

[twa]

 

[China]

MIT Engineers Unveil ‘Revolutionary’ Carbon Capture Tech to Absorb CO2 Using ‘Significantly’ Less Energy and Money

 

A new way of removing carbon dioxide from a stream of air could provide a significant tool in the battle against climate change.

 

Most methods of removing carbon dioxide from a stream of gas require higher concentrations, such as those found in the flue emissions from fossil fuel-based power plants. A few variations have been developed that can work with the low concentrations found in air, but the new method is significantly less energy-intensive and expensive, the researchers say.

 

The technique, based on passing air through a stack of charged electrochemical plates, is described in a new paper in the journal Energy and Environmental Science, by MIT postdoc Sahag Voskian, who developed the work during his PhD, and T. Alan Hatton, the Ralph Landau Professor of Chemical Engineering.

 

The device is essentially a large, specialized battery that absorbs carbon dioxide from the air (or other gas stream) passing over its electrodes as it is being charged up, and then releases the gas as it is being discharged. In operation, the device would simply alternate between charging and discharging, with fresh air or feed gas being blown through the system during the charging cycle, and then the pure, concentrated carbon dioxide being blown out during the discharging.

 

As the battery charges, an electrochemical reaction takes place at the surface of each of a stack of electrodes. These are coated with a compound called polyanthraquinone, which is composited with carbon nanotubes. The electrodes have a natural affinity for carbon dioxide and readily react with its molecules in the airstream or feed gas, even when it is present at very low concentrations. The reverse reaction takes place when the battery is discharged—during which the device can provide part of the power needed for the whole system—and in the process ejects a stream of pure carbon dioxide. The whole system operates at room temperature and normal air pressure.

 

 

“The greatest advantage of this technology over most other carbon capture or carbon absorbing technologies is the binary nature of the adsorbent’s affinity to carbon dioxide,” explains Voskian. In other words, the electrode material, by its nature, “has either a high affinity or no affinity whatsoever,” depending on the battery’s state of charging or discharging. Other reactions used for carbon capture require intermediate chemical processing steps or the input of significant energy such as heat, or pressure differences.

 

In some soft-drink bottling plants, fossil fuel is burned to generate the carbon dioxide needed to give the drinks their fizz. Similarly, some farmers burn natural gas to produce carbon dioxide to feed their plants in greenhouses. The new system could eliminate that need for fossil fuels in these applications, and in the process actually be taking the greenhouse gas right out of the air, Voskian says. Alternatively, the pure carbon dioxide stream could be compressed and injected underground for long-term disposal, or even made into fuel through a series of chemical and electrochemical processes.

 

The process this system uses for capturing and releasing carbon dioxide “is revolutionary,” he says. “All of this is at ambient conditions—there’s no need for thermal, pressure, or chemical input. It’s just these very thin sheets, with both surfaces active, that can be stacked in a box and connected to a source of electricity.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

Edited November 7, 2019 by China

[China]

NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

 

Over the course of three years, NASA flew a plane carrying gas-imaging equipment above California and made a discovery that surprised even the state’s own environmental agencies: A handful of operations are responsible for the vast majority of methane emissions.

 

In a report published in Nature on Wednesday, scientists estimated that 10% of the places releasing methane -- including landfills, natural gas facilities and dairy farms -- are responsible for more than half of the state’s total emissions. And a fraction of the 272,000 sources surveyed -- just 0.2% -- account for as much as 46%.

 

The report doesn’t identify these “super emitters,” but notes that landfills give off more methane than any other source in the state. NASA’s equipment found that a subset of these landfills were the largest emitters in California and exhibited “persistent anomalous activity.”

 

The study marks the first time anyone has ever carried out a systematic survey across California of methane, a greenhouse gas that’s 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat and contributing to global warming. The release of methane has been a continual challenge for California, which has some of the most aggressive goals in the nation for curbing emissions and slowing the impacts of climate change.

 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

they should tap the landfills for methane and use it, we do here.

 

smaller GTL plants will make it even better

https://waste-management-world.com/a/waste-management-jv-to-produce-liquid-fuels-from-landfill-gas

Edited November 8, 2019 by twa

[LD0506]

[China]

Climate change: Speed limits for ships can have 'massive' benefits

 

Cutting the speed of ships has huge benefits for humans, nature and the climate, according to a new report.

 

A 20% reduction would cut greenhouse gases but also curb pollutants that damage human health such as black carbon and nitrogen oxides.

 

This speed limit would cut underwater noise by 66% and reduce the chances of whale collisions by 78%.

 

UN negotiators will meet in London this week to consider proposals to curb maritime speeds.

 

Ships, of all sorts and sizes, transport around 80% of the world's goods by volume. However they are also responsible for a significant portion of global greenhouse emissions thanks to the burning of fuel.

 

Shipping generates roughly 3% of the global total of warming gases - that's roughly the same quantity as emitted by Germany.

 

While shipping wasn't covered by the Paris climate agreement, last year the industry agreed to cut emissions by 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[twa]

Buncha NIMBY MFers, don't they know they are gonna drown?

Quote

 

In Ocean City, town leaders are skeptical. Meehan said they support wind energy as long as it isn’t visible from the shore, and would rather regulators shift the projects farther offshore. Though U.S. Wind says its windmills will be at least 17 miles away from Ocean City beaches, the town is concerned future phases of its farm will be built closer — the state is allowing it to build within a zone that comes as close as 13.8 miles from shore.

Meehan said he sees thousands of people out on oceanfront balconies on summer mornings, drinking coffee and watching the sun rise. He thinks the silhouettes of wind turbines on the horizon would ruin that view.

“We’ve changed so many things in the world today,” he said. “To preserve something like that for future generations, we feel, is important.”

Residents and property owners fear that aside from driving tourists to vacation elsewhere, visible wind turbines could drive down real estate values.

 

 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/environment/bs-md-offshore-wind-turbines-20191114-6p3s7xm7wndttab5uybzvj7xbm-story.html#nws=true

[China]

Climate change puts 60% of US superfund sites at risk

 

At least 60 percent of U.S. Superfund sites are in areas vulnerable to flooding or other worsening disasters of climate change, and the Trump administration’s reluctance to directly acknowledge global warming is deterring efforts to safeguard them, a congressional watchdog agency says.

 

In a report being released Monday, the Government Accountability Office called on Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler to state directly that dealing with the rising risks of seas, storms or wildfires breaching Superfund sites under climate change is part of the agency’s mission.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[BleedBNG]

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[No Excuses]

Kind of sad that this even needs to be stated but what can you do when a little less than half the country is suffering from Dunning-Kruger.

 

 

 

[twa]

Did they say when we are gonna die?

[China]

1 hour ago, twa said:

Did they say when we are gonna die?

 

Figure it out yourself.

[No Excuses]

 

[PeterMP]

13 hours ago, No Excuses said:

 

 

The WaPo article nor the report use the word unlivable.

 

(and large sections of the world are unlivable now essentially because they are too cold.  This seems to be a poor reason to support climate change legislation.)

Edited November 27, 2019 by PeterMP

[China]

The World Is Giving Up On Climate Change

 

We’ve had our fun for the morning, so here’s something dead serious from the Financial Times to drag you back into reality:

 

 

Europe is pulling back from clean energy research. India and Brazil barely have any to begin with. The United States is flat at about $50 billion—maybe a tenth of what we should be spending. And China, after a decade of research, has decided to double down on coal and slash its clean energy R&D. Only Southeast Asia is still increasing its green energy research, perhaps because they have a more visceral fear of climate change than the rest of us. When you announce that you’re moving your capital from Jakarta to an entirely new island because Jakarta is sinking—well, that concentrates a man’s mind, doesn’t it?

 

This is a disaster. Given (1) the consistent global refusal to cut back on energy usage and (2) the fact that building out current technology (mostly wind and solar) will only get us halfway to zero carbon, our only hope lies in better technology. Without that, 2°C is already in the rear-view mirror and even 3°C is all but impossible to achieve. We’re looking instead at a world that will warm by 4°C or even 5°C during the second half of the century. This is not a world you want your grandchildren to live in.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[PeterMP]

On 11/27/2019 at 2:58 AM, China said:

This is a disaster. Given (1) the consistent global refusal to cut back on energy usage and (2) the fact that building out current technology (mostly wind and solar) will only get us halfway to zero carbon, our only hope lies in better technology. Without that, 2°C is already in the rear-view mirror and even 3°C is all but impossible to achieve. We’re looking instead at a world that will warm by 4°C or even 5°C during the second half of the century. This is not a world you want your grandchildren to live in.

 

At this time, to me there appear to be fundamentally 2 choices:

 

1.  We can have pretty large cuts in the amount of energy we use (which could be coupled with increases in energy prices), which means large cuts in consumption, which doesn't seem to be something most people in the world, including the US want to do (and especially the US as we are probably consume and waste the most).

 

2.  We can accept climate change is going to happen to a significant degree and for some areas catastrophic nature and start trying to mitigate the effects.

 

It is unlikely at this time a 3rd option will arise where we magically generate large amounts of energy at a global level that will prevent climate change through new research (especially in the context of if we use less fossil fuels that just makes them cheaper on a global level for other countries to use.).

 

Spending money on the 3rd option doesn't make much sense.  1 seems politically and philosophically impractical.  Which I think leaves you with #2.  To me the question for #2 becomes how do you do it.

 

Do we want to spend money trying to protect the infrastructure we have (e.g. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/staten-island-seawall-climate-crisis-design/index.html) or spend money building new infrastructure that is more likely to be relevant and protected as climate changes.

Edited November 29, 2019 by PeterMP