|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#121 |
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,688
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#122 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 69,613
|
|
__________________
Please scream inside your heart. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#123 |
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,688
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#124 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 69,613
|
|
__________________
Please scream inside your heart. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#125 |
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,688
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#126 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,876
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#127 |
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,688
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#128 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,876
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#129 |
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,688
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#130 |
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,688
|
BTW
What insult after insult? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#131 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
Going to a street march isn't much of a change in behavior. It's certainly not a change in any of the behaviors that significantly affect global warming.
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe in the end, the Greta movement doesn't add up to anything more than the Occupy movement. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#132 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,860
|
Street marches generate tons of garbage, disrupt the little traffic efficiency any city has and in extreme cases cause property damages and martyrs to the cause.
S America has six countries making the news for mass protests. Four of which are resulting in deaths, usually for political unrest. In Mexico it has been a lot of women's rights, radical feminist groups that seem to get off on spray painting on national monuments in Mex City. It seems they dislike shop windows downtown too. No one hurt yet but the police aren't doing more than blocking access to areas yet. The ladies have caused costs of millions to undo damages and still haven't defined a demand beyond no more violence against women. As far as rights go they have more than men already. Yeah, protest or revolution as a last resort but there are less costly ways to cause change. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#133 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
On the other hand, if the situation truly is dire, then perhaps it's too late for the less costly ways. Perhaps now is the time for revolution. Perhaps now is the time for the workers of the world to unite, and seize the means of production. In which case, Greta's antics are just more theater in a world desperate for real action.
Now, if Greta were actually preaching revolution, actually arguing for an urgent need to overthrow and replace the world order within the next 8-11 years, that would be a brave campaign. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#134 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,188
|
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#135 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#136 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,924
|
If that biomass from the Amazon were replaced with regrowth, then it would not contribute towards that cap. IF there were regrowth.... (That's a big "if").
So if we have a forest that is managed pretty well, then we could grow trees, harvest them, burn them to generate electricity, replant and regrow to capture more carbon, and continue the cycle. That would not contribute towards increase in atmospheric carbon*. It would be like just another form of solar cell, in terms of carbon. That's not what is happening in the Amazon, but could be what is happening with the fuel source for Lynemouth (I'm not informed enough to judge that specific example). *I think it might be hard to fully make it carbon neutral in practice, but in some instances it could get pretty close. The need to maintain the forest for optimum growth would consume some carbon (especially if fertilizers and pesticides are needed), as would harvest and transportation. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#137 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
Thank you. That much I had more or less figured out, but it's good to see another take on it.
But part of what confuses me about this is the timelines involved. It takes decades for a tree to sequester the carbon released in an instant by its predecessor. But we're being told that we need to put a hard cap on emissions within the next 8-11 years, or else lock in a catastrophic temperature and sea level rise within the next century. So while this kind of carbon-neutral biomass powerplant makes sense in the long term, and looks good on paper right now, this might not be the best time to start a biomass power plant project by releasing tons of sequestered CO2. The ten years immediately in front of us would probably be better spent sequestering more carbon first, and then burning it later, once the overall emissions are brought down to below the cap, and the crisis has been averted. lomiller, are you arguing that biomass plants like Lynemouth, with their increased emissions, are safe to operate in terms of the looming global catastrophe, because we're going to sequester that carbon before it exceeds the hard cap within the next ten years or so? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#138 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,188
|
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
If she tries to set an example in an economic structure that at present is not built to accommodate low CO2 emissions you complain she’s putting on a show. If she doesn’t you complain she’s a hypocrite and asking others to do things she doesn’t follow here self. There is literally no course of action she could take other than “shut up and let climate change happen” that would satisfy the deniers. |
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#139 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,460
|
You missed my post where I explained that the trees are cut down on the west coast of North America? The fuel (fossil) for the chain saws, vehicles that tow the trees to the processing plant, the processing plant itself, the trucks that take the pellets from the plant to the rail depot, the locomotives that haul the pellets across North America, the handling equipment at the ports that transfer the pellets to ships, the ships that transport the pellets across the Atlantic, the similar transport by rail and road once the pellets reach the UK - none of that is counted by the UK as fossil fuel burned to generate electricity.
Sure the trees that are cut down are replaced by saplings. After about two hundred years or so, if those saplings grow into mature trees, then they are carbon neutral. There's still the unfortunate two hundred year gap where they're not - plus all the real fossil fuel used in the processing and transport of the pellets. In terms of combating the 'climate crisis' the conversion of the power station is wholly negative. Over the projected lifetime of the power station, more carbon dioxide will be added to the atmosphere than if the plant had continued to run on coal. Add to that the fact that there was nothing preventing the power station from planting saplings WITHOUT cutting down the mature trees in the first place. It's all just greenwashing. The Czech company could make a profit because there were subsidies available for "sustainable power generation", no one has to count the emissions caused by the ships, locomotives, etc. because they (mostly) aren't in the UK. The government can claim it's meeting its targets on emissions and reduced coal burning. Everything is great except for the unfortunate fact that the planet is warming faster because of the conversion. Anyway, I got paid for my work on the power station conversion. It wasn't my choice - I had to do it as part of my job. I and my colleagues also made lots of journeys up and down the M1/A1 to do the work. I'm confident that the fuel we burned doing that was a drop in a bucket compared to the ongoing emissions from the, now, fully functional "green" power station. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#140 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,924
|
If true, that's unfortunate.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#141 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,460
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#142 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
I don't know what this means in this context.
Quote:
"Sort of send a message"? We're on the verge of a global catastrophe. Don't you think this merits more than a "sort of" from people like Greta, who claim to be incensed by the urgent need and lack of action? And look at her latest voyage. She needed a crew member on short notice. Not because she was actually under any real time constraint. She had weeks to book a plane ticket. That would have been the practical solution. It would probably have been the most responsible solution, if her presence at COP25 were really so important as to justify some air travel. But she needed a crew member "on short notice" because she wanted to spend those weeks sailing to COP25. To "sort of" send a message. So the crew member gets on a plane and flies to the US. That is neither the practical solution nor the principled solution. It doesn't even support the idea that it's important for Greta to attend COP25 at all. And look at what the crew member says about why she flew over: She did it to meet Greta in person. That's fan-club behavior. That's Gretamessiah-tier stuff. And why is "sustainable carbon-neutral globetrotting isn't practical right now" such an important message to send at this juncture? Such an important message to "sort of" send? Why is it more important than, say, "nobody should be flying at all, unless the need is great"? She could repudiate this sailing clown who flew around the world to sit at the feet of St. Thunberg for a couple weeks. She could explain that she, like all the other scientists and diplomats, is flying to COP25 because the need justifies the expense. That would have satisfied me. But that's not what she did. Sustainable carbon-neutral global travel for the masses is a goal that can probably wait until mid-century at least. Until after the looming catastrophe is averted by a drastic reduction of non-critical emissions across the board. But for some reason she's chosen to make this issue front and center this week. Sort of. --- Personally, I don't buy that this was her intended message. It sounds like a post hoc, ad hoc rationalization. I think she started out naively hoping to set an example of sustainable, low-emissions travel by boat instead of plane. But neither she nor anyone in her entourage actually stopped to think through the implications and trade-offs in this. They just assumed it would work out, with a bit of social-media begging perhaps. Then, when they got surprised by necessity, and had to start explaining all these plane trips anyway, and the non-scalability of her solution, and all the other impracticalities they'd discovered, they came up with this half assed "sort of send a message" thing. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#143 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,188
|
Did I mention the Amazon of say I thought it was an issue?
FWIW: People are just easily mislead by uptake numbers as they are by emission numbers. What matters is how much carbon is stored semi-permanently. Plants in the amazon absorb a lot of carbon, but plant material breaks down very quickly when the plants die so doesn’t keep the carbon in sequestration. Overall, temperate forests keep more carbon in storage than tropical so cutting them down releases more carbon than cutting down tropical forests. |
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#144 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,188
|
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#145 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
You pushed back on the idea that the biomass plant being carbon-negative was a problem, because carbon released from burning biomass can be re-sequestered.
This is confusing to me because of the timelines involved. It it really safe to be operating carbon-negative biomass plants at this juncture? What I understand, from listening to the science, is that if we don't bring overall emissions down, drastically, immediately, it doesn't matter how much carbon we plan to re-sequester later on. We need to be sequestering more carbon in biomass right now, not burning more biomass. Right? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#146 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,460
|
A mature forest neither absorbs nor emits carbon - the carbon absorbed and incorporated into the growing trees is given back to the atmosphere when those trees eventually burn or rot.
If you want to remove carbon from the atmosphere by growing trees, then you either need to continually increase the proportion of land covered by trees (clearly not sustainable) or somehow cut down and bury mature trees without burning significant amounts of fossil fuel in the process. I suppose that might be possible in theory, given timber management and mining equipment that could be powered by solar or wind-power electricity. It's certainly not happening at the moment, and I don't see any government or industry planning to move to such clean wood-burying technology. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#147 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#148 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,188
|
Old trees are also much more valuable for the timber. The big issue wrt land use is cutting down forests and replacing them with grasslands. Replacing old forests with young forest for timber production has a smaller impact, but that isn’t happening much anymore because there isn’t a lot of old growth forest left in temperate climates.
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#149 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,460
|
You have it right. And any such emissions-neutral cycle shouldn't involve transporting biomass a quarter of the way around the world.
The significant biomass-burning power stations in the UK and parts of Europe do involve such long-distance transport. because land is too valuable here to use it to grow stuff you're intending to burn. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#150 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,188
|
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#151 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,460
|
Here's an article that claims that all biomass power stations emit more C02 from their smokestacks per unit of electricity produced than coal plants do. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sasha-s...nability-smoke I don't know if it's accurate or not. Read it and decide for yourself.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#152 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#153 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
If she had pushed the message that nobody should be flying, and then she flew to COP25 with no explanation, I would have taken issue with that.
If she had flown to COP25, with the explanation that nobody should be flying except out of great need, and there was a great need for her to attend COP25, I would not have taken issue with that explanation. That's essentially the explanation being offered by all the other diplomats and scientists who will be in attendance. You don't see me condemning them. There is a right answer. Greta just isn't giving it. Do you think flying a crew member across the Atlantic to help Greta sail to COP25 is justified by Greta's great need to attend COP25? Can you even articulate what that great need is, exactly? That is what I'm taking issue with. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#154 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,188
|
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#155 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,460
|
Don't see how it can be right as the plant conversion wasn't completed until 2018.
Maybe they were running some biomass before that during testing. Anyway, see the article I linked two a few posts previously which says that all biomass plants are just greenwash. Lynemouth is a very small power station anyway. I've also done some work at Drax, which is much larger and burns much more biomass. However, my personal involvement at Drax has been tiny compared with the time I've spent at Lynemouth. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#156 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 11,188
|
I've explained her contribution before, but here it is again. Greta is very good at communicating the need for action on climate change. Given that communication is one of the key goals of these conferences, she seems like a very good person to have there. I guess you could argue that “no one truly needs to be there” but then we are back to there being no answer climate deniers are willing to accept.
|
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen" |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#157 |
puzzler
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 6,460
|
I think many of the posters in this thread aren't climate change deniers. Rather we're denying that all the conferences and activism are achieving very much in the way of actual action to combat climate change.
Global CO2 emissions went up again this year, regardless of all the speechifying and targets set by the politicians. If they're serious about getting a year-on-year reduction of 7%, starting immediately (actually already overdue) then they're not doing anywhere near enough about it. I tell people that if they're serious about the targets, then Boeing and Airbus need to go out of business immediately: flying needs to reduce dramatically over the next twenty years and we already have enough airliners to last that long if the number of flights is to be gradually reduced to meet the targets. The UK government want to eliminate gas-powered central heating - but if they really want to do that they'd need a wartime-style effort to begin building electric powered boilers (furnaces) training up an army of fitters, upgrading the national grid and under-road power cables, building new power stations to supply the power for those and all the new electric cars, &c. Actually the politicians are doing none of that which proves to me that they're not at all serious about meeting their own targets. And the UK only emits about 1% of global carbon anyway, so even if we did achieve all our targets it wouldn't make much difference globally other than by setting an example for other countries to follow. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#158 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
Earlier in this thread, I suggested that if Greta really were a brave campaigner, she'd be taking her message of civil disobedience to the schoolchildren of China.
Perhaps a more practical, but still very brave campaign for Greta, would be if she campaigned for immediate easing of regulations regarding nuclear power plant construction and waste disposal, and launched herself directly against the NIMBYism that prevents us from establishing a long-term nuclear waste repository. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#159 |
In the Peanut Gallery
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 46,876
|
|
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#160 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 48,640
|
That seems kind of defeatist. You can't come up with a compelling argument for anyone's attendance, let alone Greta's, and somehow you want to blame this on the "deniers"? Have you considered the possibility that there just isn't an important reason for Greta to be there?
I don't think Greta is very good at communicating the need for action on climate change. Or at least, she does a lot of communication, but doesn't seem to be inspiring a lot of action. The main attendees at COP25 are national representatives who are ostensibly going to be crafting the next phase of international policy on climate change. Do you seriously think they need to hear from Greta in person? Didn't she just finish addressing them at the United Nations in New York? When President Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Accords, it prompted several US state agencies to step forward with their own independent proposals to fight climate change. Which is weird, the way that worked out, and I don't intend to make a big deal of it. But as far as I know, Thunberg hasn't even had that level of effect on policymakers. Sure, she's gotten a lot of kids to skip school on Fridays. And apparently Swedes are cutting back on their air travel. So that's good. But I think you're seriously overestimating her power to convince policymakers to adopt her policies. I think you're seriously overvaluing her contribution to COP25. It might help if you had some concrete examples of Greta's skill at communication leading to real policy change. When Jimmy Carter sat down with Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, the result was a new policy: The Camp David Accords. When Molotov met with Ribbentrop, the result was one of the most significant policies of the 20th century. I'm not saying Thunberg needs to change policy on that level. She's only 16 years old, after all. But what level of policy change has she accomplished? What policy makers has she sat down with, and inspired to set new climate change policy? What is she going to do at COP25? Tell the French representative what climate change policy his country needs to adopt, as if he hasn't heard it all before? As if he isn't already being informed by scientists, and economists, and politicians, in exhaustive detail, about this very topic? You've explained her contribution before, but it's not much of an explanation. It doesn't explain why it's necessary to fly sailboat crew from the UK to the US "on short notice" to help Greta sail to COP25. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|