yeah, in my country, u feel that u are in an oven
Global warming - an urgent problem requiring radical solution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
1 day ago
0
#29323
Billy-bingo wrote:
I think it is a very good analogy when one talks about the world agreeing on a climate issue that the world does not agree on.
Climate accords not withstanding, very large populations on this planet are doing less than nothing about a solution regardless of their agreements to do so.
The pace of change from fossil to non-fossil fuels is primarily in net growth not in replacement. That means regardless of how fast solar, wind, etc are added to the global grid, the existing facilities, that created the problem, are still polluting and likely will do so for decades.
It is a sound conclusion that there will be coal pollution for decades. It is not a sound conclusion that coal will not decline: currently it would be dramatically in decline without 2 countries (they are not the only ones, it's just that others that are growing are small in impact), and those countries can change like all the others have. Indeed the forecast is for falling consumption there in the early 30s, but it is not impossible it could be earlier. There is one barrier in China - coal power is mostly public sector. So policy decisions that lead to shutting down of coal generation are sort of a cost to the entity making the decisions. It's much easier for companies to outcompete other companies without the slightest qualms, as renewable generation is doing across the world.
Carbon Brief draws attention to China's national policy for peak emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2060, the latter being just 10 years later some of the more aggressive targets in the developed world. 2050 is the official target date for net zero by the US, the EU, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Canada, New Zealand and others.
yeah, in my country, u feel that u are in an oven
have u been to bugsuck island ?
Crossing the river by touching the stones
From #29323
The chinese s approaches allow for adaptative strategies that fit within broader policies and with society s larger consensus
Still to be seen if the global ecology could ever relax a bit and maybe someday recover from the present stress position 🌊
"In ecology, "stress positions" generally refers to the idea that organisms in stressful environments experience a shift in their ecological roles and interactions compared to more benign conditions. This can manifest as reduced biodiversity, decreased overall ecosystem productivity, and lowered resilience. The stress-gradient hypothesis (SGH) further suggests that the frequency of facilitative and competitive interactions between species may vary across environmental stress gradients, with facilitation potentially becoming more common in high-stress conditions. [...]
stressors like climate change..... 🤔
Stress Positions is also a 2024 " poignant, quirky" comedy/ drama in which a moroccan model in the first months of the Covid-19 years is .... well Idk maybe having some sort of problem
Much of the initial critical reaction to Stress Positions centered on the film's satirical approach to issues of race, gender, and sexuality. Writing for The Hollywood Reporter, David Rooney deemed Stress Positions "busy but thin". Ryan Lattanzio of Indiewire noted the film's heavy-handed approach to social issues but praised the "wry humor" and the chemistry between Hammel and Early.
Now you know 😏
1 day ago
0
#29328
Elroch wrote:
Billy-bingo wrote:
I think it is a very good analogy when one talks about the world agreeing on a climate issue that the world does not agree on.
Climate accords not withstanding, very large populations on this planet are doing less than nothing about a solution regardless of their agreements to do so.
The pace of change from fossil to non-fossil fuels is primarily in net growth not in replacement. That means regardless of how fast solar, wind, etc are added to the global grid, the existing facilities, that created the problem, are still polluting and likely will do so for decades.
It is a sound conclusion that there will be coal pollution for decades. It is not a sound conclusion that coal will not decline: currently it would be dramatically in decline without 2 countries (they are not the only ones, it's just that others that are growing are small in impact), and those countries can change like all the others have. Indeed the forecast is for falling consumption there in the early 30s, but it is not impossible it could be earlier. There is one barrier in China - coal power is mostly public sector. So policy decisions that lead to shutting down of coal generation are sort of a cost to the entity making the decisions. It's much easier for companies to outcompete other companies without the slightest qualms, as renewable generation is doing across the world.
Carbon Brief draws attention to China's national policy for peak emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2060, the latter being just 10 years later some of the more aggressive targets in the developed world. 2050 is the official target date for net zero by the US, the EU, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Canada, New Zealand and others.
2050 for 'net zero' in the US?
For that to happen - renewables would have to grow faster than the demand for electricity grows.
Same in China and India.
Nuclear and hydro don't seem to be exactly 'growing'.
But if solar becomes dirt cheap in all ways then that could have the potential to begin to knock out coal?
Idea: apartment buildings could be built with solar in mind. Few floors.
Wide instead of high. The roof slanted to the south. The trees set a certain way.
Issue: cost of land. Causes high-rises to be built instead.
---------------------
Use of coal worldwide is still growing.
When does it start to decline? Could take awhile.
1 day ago
0
#29329
23 hrs ago
0
#29330
playerafar wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Billy-bingo wrote:
I think it is a very good analogy when one talks about the world agreeing on a climate issue that the world does not agree on.
Climate accords not withstanding, very large populations on this planet are doing less than nothing about a solution regardless of their agreements to do so.
The pace of change from fossil to non-fossil fuels is primarily in net growth not in replacement. That means regardless of how fast solar, wind, etc are added to the global grid, the existing facilities, that created the problem, are still polluting and likely will do so for decades.
It is a sound conclusion that there will be coal pollution for decades. It is not a sound conclusion that coal will not decline: currently it would be dramatically in decline without 2 countries (they are not the only ones, it's just that others that are growing are small in impact), and those countries can change like all the others have. Indeed the forecast is for falling consumption there in the early 30s, but it is not impossible it could be earlier. There is one barrier in China - coal power is mostly public sector. So policy decisions that lead to shutting down of coal generation are sort of a cost to the entity making the decisions. It's much easier for companies to outcompete other companies without the slightest qualms, as renewable generation is doing across the world.
Carbon Brief draws attention to China's national policy for peak emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2060, the latter being just 10 years later some of the more aggressive targets in the developed world. 2050 is the official target date for net zero by the US, the EU, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Canada, New Zealand and others.
2050 for 'net zero' in the US?
For that to happen - renewables would have to grow faster than the demand for electricity grows.
Yes. It is a quite ambitious goal. But the economics could get very interesting if functioning trade returns in 2029. Otherwise, the US will be very backward.
Same in China and India.
India has a feeble target of net zero in 2070, an aim to be backward. China only has a target of 2060, and should achieve it. Progress could accelerate a lot if prices of renewable energy continue to fall and storage technology gets to the level where it is not a problem. Both are forecast to happen.Nuclear and hydro don't seem to be exactly 'growing'.
No.But if solar becomes dirt cheap in all ways then that could have the potential to begin to knock out coal?
It's happening. But it needs storage to do the job properly.Idea: apartment buildings could be built with solar in mind. Few floors.
Wide instead of high. The roof slanted to the south. The trees set a certain way.
Issue: cost of land. Causes high-rises to be built instead.
---------------------
Use of coal worldwide is still growing.
When does it start to decline? Could take awhile.
Could be quite soon, according to analysis.
I think you can see the rise of coal is behind us from this graph. It is ready to start falling soon.
12 hrs ago
0
#29331
@Elroch
Nice graph.
But had to edit my post after seeing what chatgpt is saying.
The grey part of the graph is apparently the entire world - not 'the rest of the world'.
'apparently'.
Excerpts from that AI (condensed)
'In 2023, global coal consumption reached an all-time high, surpassing 8.5 billion metric tons (Bt) for the first time. This marked a 1.4% increase from the previous year, driven primarily by strong demand in emerging and developing economies, particularly in Asia .
As the world's largest coal consumer, China's demand rose by approximately 5%, adding around 220 million metric tons to its total .
India: India's coal consumption increased by about 8%, or 98 million metric tons.'
----------------
When also asked this same question:
'Hi. Please give the 2023 global use of coal in billions of tons.'
then copilot and gemini also replied with an 8.5 billion tons of coal figure.
And gemini mentioned this site:
https://www.iea.org/reports/coal-2023/executive-summary
12 hrs ago
0
#29332
Does 8.5 billion tons of coal burnt every year 'square' with 37 billion tons of extra CO2 dumped in the atmosphere every year by industry?
It actually does. The numbers fit.
LIke this: When burning - two atoms of oxygen add to each atom of carbon.
But the oxygens are each heavier than the carbon.
Atomic weight of the carbon: 12.
weight of the CO2 molecule: 44.
That would translate to 30 billion tons of CO2 ?
----------------
No because coal isn't pure carbon.
The coal commonly burned is about 70% carbon it seems.
So you instead get over 20 billion tons of CO2.
In other words - coal burning accounts for over half of the extra CO2 dumped in the atmosphere every year - 37 billion tons of the stuff - producing the very disastrous 420 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere - causing the growing worldwide disaster of manmade climate change.
As far as the wise seer who accurately predicted the end of the world, intelligence is her strength. In 2019 she had the incredible foresight to knowingly predict the end of the world. Very, very impressive. Who knows, maybe with that kind of insight, she might run for president some day.
Did she say the world world be destroyed by global warming/climate change?
If you lined up all the people throughout history who have predicted a date or year the world would end that line would stretch from Lisbon to Vladivostok. None have been right.
We won't know if this person "knowingly" predicted anything (or is just another publicity seeker) for another six years. Maybe in 2031 she'll announce "a slight miscalculation" and put off doomsday for a few years. A lot of religious leaders and/or nut jobs have pulled this trick before.
By the way, who is this person?
She said the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't do something about climate change. I'm paraphrasing though. That was in 2019. I was just thinking about the context of China ramping up coal plants.
I just think that's a pretty specific date. Given her unparalleled knowledge about all things climate related, she must have somehow extrapolated the likely life span of her dog and calculated the expiration date for the world from that. Good thing she has a lot of followers. They can all benefit from her wisdom.
Her name is A1C. Or maybe A0C. I can't remember. I think her name is like a hemoglobin blood sugar test or something. Now that I think about it, maybe she was just having a low blood sugar moment when she blurted out those comments.