Climate change policies

[WouldBe]

The amount of energy produced by burning green hydrogen is less than the amount of energy consumed to produce it.

If you're using green electricity to produce the green hydrogen then it doesn't matter as you're not adding any extra carbon to the atmosphere at any point.

 

[stavros]

In the budget, the government pledged more money for green hydrogen.
I do not know much about green hydrogen, but I do know that is produced using elecrricity. The amount of energy produced by burning green hydrogen is less than the amount of energy consumed to produce it.

Someone may correct me, but I think hydrogen's attraction is as a storage medium. As renewable generation doesn't correlate with peak demand, hydrogen could allow storage of excess at times of high production, to be distributed to the end users when they require it, removing, or at least reducing, the need for a fossil fuel base load.

 

[pug]

They say it has to be pressurised for storage and the energy required to do so is too much.

 

[PTK]

Someone may correct me, but I think hydrogen's attraction is as a storage medium. As renewable generation doesn't correlate with peak demand, hydrogen could allow storage of excess at times of high production, to be distributed to the end users when they require it, removing, or at least reducing, the need for a fossil fuel base load.

Perhaps it would be easier to pump water uphill, then let it fall back over turbine blades at times of high demand.

 

[StoneRoad]

Perhaps it would be easier to pump water uphill, then let it fall back over turbine blades at times of high demand.

That requires two storage reservoirs, one at a significantly higher altitude. These require a means of impounding the water, and that is usually a concrete dam [when the height is significant] or a large clay bank, but there's concrete in those as well. [see the dam at Kielder Water as an example]
Producing concrete has a large carbon footprint.

Also, the UK doesn't have a large number of rivers suitable for HEP or sites for pumped storage schemes. For the UK, most of better sites for the latter are already in use, several others have been proposed.
[Loch Awe / Cruachan, Ffestiniog and Dinorwig]

 

[SpookyFrank]

I do not know much about green hydrogen, but I do know that is produced using elecrricity. The amount of energy produced by burning green hydrogen is less than the amount of energy consumed to produce it.

Absolutely any form of energy transfer or storage will have losses. Not really fair to pin this criticism on hydrogen alone.

 

[stavros]

I don't remember either candidate mentioning the subject on the campaign, but I suspect yesterday's events have greatly increased our chances of utterly fucking our only planet.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't remember either candidate mentioning the subject on the campaign, but I suspect yesterday's events have greatly increased our chances of utterly fucking our only planet.

Shamefully it wasn't an issue. Trump doesn't care and Harris was too timid to bring it up.

But we know what Trump will do. We have his first term to judge him by. He will rip up federal environmental legislation and give tax breaks to polluters. Trump is a disaster for the world in this regard.

 

[stavros]

Shamefully it wasn't an issue. Trump doesn't care and Harris was too timid to bring it up.

But we know what Trump will do. We have his first term to judge him by. He will rip up federal environmental legislation and give tax breaks to polluters. Trump is a disaster for the world in this regard.

And he'll do all he can to get drilling, for oil and shale.

 

[StoneRoad]

Trump will also pull out of the Paris Accords ... that was one of his actions during his previous stint.

The world's pretty much fucked already, the orange buffoon will just cement that into stone, and push us all well past the temperature "tipping" point.

[Wish the next hurricane lamps Malingerer's Largo, with him in it.].

 

[stavros]

The world's pretty much fucked already, the orange buffoon will just cement that into stone, and push us all well past the temperature "tipping" point.

He'll accelerate what was probably going to happen eventually, regardless of who was in office anywhere. The massive devaluation of one waterside Floridian property is only small consolation.

 

[stavros]

More broadly, and this could arguably be a separate thread, I'd like to see psychological thought start to shape policy. It seems the post-war free market ethos will not solve the problems, but how you undo the basis around which Western society, and a growing number of others, has been built for nearly 80 years? You can argue that it needs top-down autocracy, but on the other hand outside of China and other dictatorships that won't happen without electorate and demand for it.

How do you create happiness and satisfaction with less?

 

[PTK]

More broadly, and this could arguably be a separate thread, I'd like to see psychological thought start to shape policy. It seems the post-war free market ethos will not solve the problems, but how you undo the basis around which Western society, and a growing number of others, has been built for nearly 80 years? You can argue that it needs top-down autocracy, but on the other hand outside of China and other dictatorships that won't happen without electorate and demand for it.

How do you create happiness and satisfaction with less?

Why do you place the "free market ethos" as beginning after 1945? There was such an ethos before the Second World War, and for abour 30 years following that war capitalism followed a model of a much state regulation.

 

[stavros]

Why do you place the "free market ethos" as beginning after 1945? There was such an ethos before the Second World War, and for abour 30 years following that war capitalism followed a model of a much state regulation.

I'm using it as a nominal start point for truly mass consumerism, and the rough era at which today's oldest generation came into the world. Whilst I'm no historian I know capitalism has existed in some form for hundreds if not thousands of years.

Yesterday's post was a bit of a ramble, and I'm sure someone else can articulate the general point better. Is there another system which would if not better than at least acceptable to the general population, which can be ecologically sustainable in the medium to long term?

 

[Signal 11]

Head of U.N. Climate Summit in Azerbaijan Caught on Tape Pushing Oil & Gas Deals

(~8 minute video report, mostly on the secret recording of the COP29 head doing oil deals, with a little on the previous COP28 in the UAE and on Trump's plans.)

The U.N. climate summit known as COP29 is underway in Baku, Azerbaijan, where negotiators are trying to make progress on reducing emissions and preventing the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Many activists, however, have criticized the decision to hold the talks in an authoritarian petrostate. The host country is also facing accusations that it is using the climate talks for business, after the head of the talks, Elnur Soltanov, was caught in a secret recording promoting oil and gas deals. That sting was organized by the group Global Witness, which put forward a fake investor. "In exchange for just the promise of sponsorship money, that got us to the heart of the COP29," says Lela Stanley, an investigator at Global Witness. "We need the U.N. to ban petro interests from sitting at the table, from influencing the COP."

 

[stavros]

America hasn't re-withdrawn yet, but if it does is there any chance others, most likely the EU, will punish them in any way?

 

[lazythursday]

America hasn't re-withdrawn yet, but if it does is there any chance others, most likely the EU, will punish them in any way?

No.

Though there is a possibility that some goods will end up having carbon tariffs on I think, and that could well be accelerated by Trump's own tariff policies

 

[stavros]

Well the EU are introducing import tarrifs anyway, aren't they, even before the election? Based on the embedded carbon against European made equivalents, I think.

 

[lazythursday]

Well the EU are introducing import tarrifs anyway, aren't they, even before the election? Based on the embedded carbon against European made equivalents, I think.

That's what I meant, but I didn't realise it was already agreed.

 

[stavros]

That's what I meant, but I didn't realise it was already agreed.

It may not be fully in place yet, given the agreement it needs from all 27. Someone like Orban might've tried to at least delay it.

 

[PTK]

The government of the UK is committed to achieving net zero by the year 2050.

Is this something to welcome?

If the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stopped increasing today, temperatures would continue to rise for some time. The full effects of a particular level take some time to work through.

However, by 2050, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be even higher. Furthermore, net zero will not act to reduce this level.

What we need are policies to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.​

 

[2hats]

If I were you, I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

[StoneRoad]

The government of the UK is committed to achieving net zero by the year 2050.

Is this something to welcome?

If the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stopped increasing today, temperatures would continue to rise for some time. The full effects of a particular level take some time to work through.

However, by 2050, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be even higher. Furthermore, net zero will not act to reduce this level.

What we need are policies to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.​

Yes, certainly we do need to reduce atmospheric CO2 - and worldwide.
Because of that "lag" the sooner "something" happens the better ...
But capture methods, on the larger scale, are still untested - and indications are that effective ones will not be cheap.

Perhaps "net zero" is a stepping stone to that target.
Sadly, what the UK does is almost pi55ing in the wind compared to the increasing outputs of places like China & India.

However, 'setting an example' & 'every little bit helps' are still worthwhile.

 

[stavros]

Danish cow-farting tax launched. It'll be interesting to see if this works.

 

[lazythursday]

The government of the UK is committed to achieving net zero by the year 2050.

Is this something to welcome?

If the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stopped increasing today, temperatures would continue to rise for some time. The full effects of a particular level take some time to work through.

However, by 2050, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be even higher. Furthermore, net zero will not act to reduce this level.

What we need are policies to reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.​

I'm not sure I quite understand you here. Net zero means ensuring that any carbon emissions you emit are balanced by interventions to absorb them. It is a state of balance, where you are no longer adding to the stock of CO2.

So achieving net zero goes hand in hand with reducing emissions.

There are issues with the concept of net zero by 2050 as the driving priority though. First of all there can be a tendency to focus on the carbon removal side of the equation rather than cutting emissions - witness the huge investment in unproven carbon capture and storage technologies rather than, say, a massive housing retrofit programme. And secondly a goal of 2050 says nothing about the speed of emissions cuts - is it x% per year or nothing for a decade and then huge cuts? There is a political temptation to put things off.

 

[PTK]

I'm not sure I quite understand you here. Net zero means ensuring that any carbon emissions you emit are balanced by interventions to absorb them. It is a state of balance, where you are no longer adding to the stock of CO2.

So achieving net zero goes hand in hand with reducing emissions.

There are issues with the concept of net zero by 2050 as the driving priority though. First of all there can be a tendency to focus on the carbon removal side of the equation rather than cutting emissions - witness the huge investment in unproven carbon capture and storage technologies rather than, say, a massive housing retrofit programme. And secondly a goal of 2050 says nothing about the speed of emissions cuts - is it x% per year or nothing for a decade and then huge cuts? There is a political temptation to put things off.

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is too high. By the time net zero comes in, the level will be even higher. The adverse weather events will be even more frequent. Net Zero will not reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It will not lead to lowe average temperatures.

 

[lazythursday]

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is too high. By the time net zero comes in, the level will be even higher. The adverse weather events will be even more frequent. Net Zero will not reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It will not lead to lowe average temperatures.

This just doesn't make scientific sense, sorry. Net zero is the culmination of a process. The process involves cutting emissions. The idea is we get to a point where the level of carbon dioxide is no longer increasing.

There are ways of reducing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere such as tree planting and more experimental methods of carbon removal. But there is no point doing this unless you are also cutting emissions as rapidly as possible.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for.

 

[Artaxerxes]

There is a lag time between peak carbon and carbon falling so net zero won’t solve the problem overnight but if it’s not done carbon will just continue to rise and we’ll end up like Venus

 

[Pickman's model]

This just doesn't make scientific sense, sorry. Net zero is the culmination of a process. The process involves cutting emissions. The idea is we get to a point where the level of carbon dioxide is no longer increasing.

There are ways of reducing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere such as tree planting and more experimental methods of carbon removal. But there is no point doing this unless you are also cutting emissions as rapidly as possible.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for.

Are the trees doing so well? Haven't many of the great forests reduced the carbon they absorb? Seems to me that you'd have to carpet the entire planet with trees if you want to have a hope in hell of them grabbing the gigatonnes of methane in the permafrost and off the coast of siberia

 

[lazythursday]

Are the trees doing so well? Haven't many of the great forests reduced the carbon they absorb? Seems to me that you'd have to carpet the entire planet with trees if you want to have a hope in hell of them grabbing the gigatonnes of methane in the permafrost and off the coast of siberia

Yes, lots of issues with carbon removal approaches, both natural and technological. We need more trees though regardless, for nature restoration, flood management, cooling cities, etc etc.