Plastic bags, climate change, renewable energy,

[Haakon]

Just got back from a Gas Turbine conference and one of the OEM's was pretty excited about running their test bed on 100% hydrogen. I think the next 10 years is going to be very interesting, and no-one probably knows with any confidence what the energy grid will look like in 2030.

Did they compare efficiency with using fuel cells?

 

[Haakon]

 

[Haakon]

 

[Haakon]

 

[Haakon]

From a preso by a guy from the IEA on

https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2...-disparities-in-the-global-energy-system.html

 

[Calvin27]

Depressing. Basically tells me that we have failed to transition even the most basic of fuels and only ever increased the volume of said fuel. Basically population problem. Back to square one...

 

[Oddjob]

Basically population problem. Back to square one...

I feel like I've heard this somewhere before...

We need to buy time to start shrinking the population (hmmm licenses for children) and implementing macro policies like carbon pricing, widespread nuclear, agricultural subsidy reform etc etc.

The only feasible solution I see is stratospheric aerosols.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[Calvin27]

We need to buy time to start shrinking the population (hmmm licenses for children) and implementing macro policies like carbon pricing, widespread nuclear, agricultural subsidy reform etc etc.

I actually had a discussion with a hippy mate of mine. We were sort of talking about carbon quotas as a way to actually cap emissions. Then we stumbled on the population problem and we couldn't figure out how to make this work. That is:

Do you review the population annually and divvy up the emissions quota, or do you say to parents that the kids get your emissions quota and if you have less kids then they get double the quota when both parents die.

It really messed us up lol.

 

[Haakon]

I actually had a discussion with a hippy mate of mine. We were sort of talking about carbon quotas as a way to actually cap emissions. Then we stumbled on the population problem and we couldn't figure out how to make this work. That is:

Do you review the population annually and divvy up the emissions quota, or do you say to parents that the kids get your emissions quota and if you have less kids then they get double the quota when both parents die.

It really messed us up lol.

Quotas for breeding. Also, eugenics.

 

[hifiandmtb]

For fuck sake would get off this fucking population problem agenda!

The vast majority of CO2 emissions comes from yet a small fraction of the population!

British charity Oxfam released a study that found the richest 10 percent of people produce half of the planet’s individual-consumption-based fossil fuel emissions, while the poorest 50 percent — about 3.5 billion people — contribute only 10 percent.

We could solve CC quite easily if we vastly reduced the CC impact from this part of the population.

But no...need my modern conveniences - can’t give them up, this problem is because of all those other people over there.

No. It’s. Not.

 

[Haakon]

For fuck sake would get off this fucking population problem agenda!

The vast majority of CO2 emissions comes from yet a small fraction of the population!



We could solve CC quite easily if we vastly reduced the CC impact from this part of the population.

But no...need my modern conveniences - can’t give them up, this problem is because of all those other people over there.

No. It’s. Not.

Happy to confine my evil empire aspirations to western countries

 

[Oddjob]

For fuck sake would get off this fucking population problem agenda!

The vast majority of CO2 emissions comes from yet a small fraction of the population!



We could solve CC quite easily if we vastly reduced the CC impact from this part of the population.

But no...need my modern conveniences - can’t give them up, this problem is because of all those other people over there.

No. It’s. Not.

Cept math. If we need to cut emissions by 7% or whatever it is per year, and population keeps growing by 1.2% then the actual reduction required is higher assuming consistent per capita emissions. If the 80% of people who don't live in the OECD begin to emit like the OECD in the future then the problem is worse.

On top of that the hardest emissions reductions will be in agriculture. So if we grow less food to feed less people you get a massive multiplier effect.

But hey, feel free to keep getting angry and throwing rocks while living in a market economy, in a freestanding house and driving a car. I hear North Korea has very low emissions per capita.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[hifiandmtb]

Happy to confine my evil empire aspirations to western countries

Ok then

 

[hifiandmtb]

Cept math. If we need to cut emissions by 7% or whatever it is per year, and population keeps growing by 1.2% then the actual reduction required is higher assuming consistent per capita emissions. If the 80% of people who don't live in the OECD begin to emit like the OECD in the future then the problem is worse.

On top of that the hardest emissions reductions will be in agriculture. So if we grow less food to feed less people you get a massive multiplier effect.

But hey, feel free to keep getting angry and throwing rocks while living in a market economy, in a freestanding house and driving a car. I hear North Korea has very low emissions per capita.

I’d be the first to vote for decent regulation needed to meet CC objectives - would you?

Would mean giving up meat, catching PT everywhere, no more plane travel.

So much fat to cut, we’d shit it in.

Next bits harder but at least we’d be having the conversation already.

Where we are now is incredibly childish.

 

[Scotty T]

I’d be the first to vote for decent regulation needed to meet CC objectives - would you?

Would mean giving up meat, catching PT everywhere, no more plane travel.

So much fat to cut, we’d shit it in.

Next bits harder but at least we’d be having the conversation already.

Where we are now is incredibly childish.

Would/did vote for that, or the only thing that looked like it a bit.

Instead got a 100 billion plan. Appears to be 10 billion for rail. 5.3 for planes. A whole lot for roads.

https://buildingourfuture.gov.au/

 

[Flow-Rider]

Sorry to interrupt, just thought I'd share.

Also check this shit out on the liberal site, they're going to fold to the money mongers again. The fact that you can't pick more than one issue is also a bit daunting.

THE MORRISON GOVERNMENT WANTS TO HEAR FROM YOU!

 

[Dales Cannon]

I am confused. Almost all approvals are state level.

 

[pink poodle]

It is hot windy humid cold and fucking smokey!

 

[Flow-Rider]

I am confused. Almost all approvals are state level.

Maybe they're appealing a supreme court decision or it has been taken to a high court for some other reason, I haven't followed it from the start.

 

[Haakon]

I am confused. Almost all approvals are state level.

Not EPBC Act approvals.