Global Climate Change Science News

[pErvinalia]

And where's the profit in it? Carbon credits?

[rainbow]

Carbon capture is like fusion energy. It's always just around the corner.

Can be done. It requires amines, which can be regenerated by heating to release the CO2 in a concentrated form for sequestration.

Problem is we need fossil fuels to make the amines (My idea is to use waste plastics like PVC)
It costs a lot of money. The capital costs of carbon capture are a significant portion of a power station or cement factory. Nobody will do it unless forced to do so.
The right geology for sequestration isn't everywhere. Who will cover the cost of transport, and how much energy will that take?

[rainbow]

[Brian Peacock]

And where's the profit in it? Carbon credits?

mac's position is contradictory: of course global FF need to continue making a profit, and so taxpayers will need to pay the private sector to capture carbon, but "democratic decision making is the major hurtle [sic]" and the example of China shows that state ownership is a better way to decarbonise. If the choice is between free markets and authoritarianism then I'd suggest that's simply presenting a false dichotomy in order to win a point.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-05/ ... /103189436

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels have increased over the past year despite most of the world committing to net zero targets, according to new research.

The Global Carbon Project releases its carbon budget each year, with this year's figures showing a 1.1 per cent increase in emissions across the world.

The report found there was no sign of the rapid and deep decrease in total emissions needed to prevent dangerous climate change.

Brian is right that serious political changes need to occur, starting with totally removing any representatives of the fossil fuel industry from any future climate change conferences.

I'm sorry to say this is probably down to the UK, who despite setting some of the worlds toughest targets when hosting COP26 also oversaw the participation of fossil sector lobbyists at COP26 that outnumbered any national, academic, or NGO delegation.

But at the same time, we do need a variety of technological breakthroughs to start operating. But it will take real political action to give new technologies the resources they need to ramp up rapidly, and to remove any form of public money support from the fossil fuel industry.

Just to be clear, I'm not anti-science or anti-tech - although unfortunately mac seems to interpret my critique of his future-tech-utopianism as being just that. I actually want my offspring, and their offspring, to have the best chance possible of achieving that post-scarcity Star Trek future on a stable, viable planet that mac hopes for. This is why I argue that we have to do everything we can with the science and tech we have to hand now in order to allow that 'variety of technological breakthroughs to start operating' as they become available later.

The entire economies of many nations are dependent on fossil, not least the US - still the world's hegemon politically, and holder of the global economy's reserve currency. This is why a critique of the social, economic, and political factors under which the fossil sector has grown and been maintained, and through which their ecologically and economically deleterious polluting of the biosphere has been, and is continuing to be, facilitated, needs to be our starting point.

For the most part I don't apportion blame to the fossil sector of yore or to past political decision-makers. The 200 years to the end of 20th century was a turbulent historical period, but for a large swathe of the planet's population also a period of rapid social, economic, and political transformation for the better - and much of that was founded in the expanding availability of relatively cheap energy (we can talk about empire and colonialism another day perhaps). But by the 1930s we were aware of heating consequences of industrialisation, and by 1990 we were committing to addressing the massive impacts our modern ways of living were being shown to have on the biosphere upon which we entirely depend.

If there is blame to apportion then it is to those who deliberately obfuscated the issues, de-contextualised the debate, and knowingly denied the science. Blame also falls to those who not only failed to make decisions to redress the biospheric imbalances post-1990 but who actually sought to facilitate greater expansion of the primary drivers of climate change and its consequential harms - chief culprits, the fossil and finance sectors and the predominantly right-leaning political groups who prioritised their particular economic interests over securing and enhancing the general well-being of the rest of us.

Nonetheless, where we find ourselves today is where we find ourselves, and so this is where we have to start from. If the old structures and systems upon which our societies and economies are built are not fit for purpose, are literally going to kill a great many of us, then we simply have to restructure them - and to do that we have to examine some of our most basic social, economic and political assumptions.

Recent history is showing us that we can't simply overlay new approaches over the old systems. The old systems resist that kind of change because they have been developed and implemented to specifically reproduce the conditions that have put us in the position we find ourselves in today.

This is why addressing climate and ecological breakdown is fundamentally a political issue and not one located in the application of science and technology. Science and tech are one of the ways out of this mess, but first we need to transform our democratic and economic institutions, and stop assuming that entities like the state or the boards of trans-global corporations are altruistic, dispassionate platonic monarchs who only have our best interests at heart. We also have to challenge our assumptions about that abstract concept, 'the free market', and how it is the best way to organise our societies. Transforming our social-democratic systems is the only route open to us little people that will allow the possibility of new approaches being developed, tested, and implemented for the benefit of the overwhelming majority of us.

Now, if someone thinks that expressing these kinds of views is using this thread to bully them, then I would suggest that only speaks to the fragility of their position and/or challenges their basic assumptions about what a good life entails. Having these kinds of discussions around the most significant threat our species has faced since climate shifts saw off our cousins, and nearly did for us too, shouldn't be framed as an exercise designed to cause deliberate harm to anyone. Issuing a claim of victimisation in the context of a non-contemporaneous online discussion is simply to centre the emotions, interests and opinions of the supposed victim in the debate. That's old system thinking imo. This isn't about them, this is quite literally about all of us together.

[macdoc]

Of course carbon credits and CO2 is moved around all the time.
My position is not in the least contradictory.

Don't let your moral outrage blind you to the reality that the FF industry is the only industry able to undertake it and will expect to get compensated for it.

Penalties for damage for CO2 release after the risk was established....say 1970 forward... is another matter entirely and is inching through the courts.

Thinking whole economies are entirely dependent on fossil fuels is absurd.
FF is a small percentage of world GDP.

World GDP

96.51 trillion USD (2021)

The top 10 fossil-fuel companies generated $2.24 trillion in revenue

THIS is the problem...

International Monetary Fund
https://www.imf.org › Topics › energy-subsidies
Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies. Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022, reflecting a $2 trillion increase since 2020 ...

[Brian Peacock]

Of course carbon credits and CO2 is moved around all the time.

Don't let your moral outrage blind you to the reality that the FF industry is the only industry able to undertake it and will expect to get compensated for it.

Penalties for damage for CO2 release after the risk was established....say 1970 forward... is another matter entirely and is inching through the courts.

The courts respond to law. Politicians define law, and the structure and systems by which it operates. Penalties for damage from CO2 would have to be established globally so that emissions and damage in one region could at least be prosecuted in another. Politicians define these kinds of international laws, and the structure and systems by which they operate. Yet again, the political arena becomes the primary focus of climate action, but as you said yourself, "democratic decision making is the major hurtle [sic]". So where does that leave us if not exactly where we already are?

[Brian Peacock]

THIS is the problem...

International Monetary Fund
https://www.imf.org › Topics › energy-subsidies
Size of Fossil Fuel Subsidies. Globally, fossil fuel subsidies were $7 trillion or 7.1 percent of GDP in 2022, reflecting a $2 trillion increase since 2020 ...

And you want them to spend the handouts on dismantling their profit base?

The 2022 Mitigation Report from the IPCC (PDF) estimated that the total annual costs of mitigation would range from 1.3% to 3.6% of global GDP by 2030, depending on the level of ambition, for the world to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C compared to pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.

A study presented to the UN by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate ahead of the 2018 SF Global Climate Action Summit estimated that for a spend of c.$6 trillion pa strategic climate action towards a low-carbon economy could deliver c.$26 trillion in economic benefits through to 2030 compared with a business-as-usual approach.

[Brian Peacock]

To put that into some context, last year the US spent c.0.3% of GDP (c.124 USD billion) on climate related activities, and Australia and the UK spent c.0.7% of GDP (c.24 AUD billion, c.13.5 GBP billion). If left unaddressed the IPCC estimate that climate change will have a 4-7% negative impact on global GDP annually by 2050 compared to 2019 levels.

[Brian Peacock]

Fossil fuel firms should volunteer to help vulnerable countries, says Spanish minister

If fossil fuel companies are serious about tackling the climate crisis, they could contribute to funds for poor and vulnerable countries stricken by its effects, Spain’s environment minister has said.

Teresa Ribera, a co-leader of the EU delegation at the Cop28 UN climate summit in Dubai, said: “Private corporates should be stepping into a different development model in vulnerable countries. We went through some language on that that was broadly supported by all [EU] member states, which is: why not just start by an invitation to the oil and gas companies to dedicate part of the profits to invest in sustainable development of the most vulnerable countries. And that’s on a voluntary basis [at first], because why not?”

Mandatory green taxes may also be needed on fossil fuel and other high-carbon companies, and potential levies on shipping and frequent flyers, that could generate funds for poor countries, she added. This would be in line with the “polluter pays” principle, she said, but she warned there was not yet broad agreement on such an approach...

[Brian Peacock]

Yet another reason, perhaps the primary one, why we need to engage politically today- as opposed to placing our faith in tomorrow's solutions

Earth on verge of five catastrophic climate tipping points, scientists warn

Many of the gravest threats to humanity are drawing closer, as carbon pollution heats the planet to ever more dangerous levels, scientists have warned.

Five important natural thresholds already risk being crossed, according to the Global Tipping Points report, and three more may be reached in the 2030s if the world heats 1.5C (2.7F) above pre-industrial temperatures.

Triggering these planetary shifts will not cause temperatures to spiral out of control in the coming centuries but will unleash dangerous and sweeping damage to people and nature that cannot be undone.

“Tipping points in the Earth system pose threats of a magnitude never faced by humanity,” said Tim Lenton, from the University of Exeter’s Global Systems Institute. “They can trigger devastating domino effects, including the loss of whole ecosystems and capacity to grow staple crops, with societal impacts including mass displacement, political instability and financial collapse.”

The tipping points at risk include the collapse of big ice sheets in Greenland and the West Antarctic, the widespread thawing of permafrost, the death of coral reefs in warm waters, and the collapse of one atmospheric current in the North Atlantic.

Unlike other changes to the climate such as hotter heatwaves and heavier rainfall, these systems do not slowly shift in line with greenhouse gas emissions but can instead flip from one state to an entirely different one. When a climatic system tips – sometimes with a sudden shock – it may permanently alter the way the planet works.

Scientists warn that there are large uncertainties around when such systems will shift but the report found that three more may soon join the list. These include mangroves and seagrass meadows, which are expected to die off in some regions if the temperatures rise between 1.5C and 2C, and boreal forests, which may tip as early as 1.4C of heating or as late as 5C...

- Global Tipping Points.
- New report: Tipping point threats and opportunities accelerate.

[Brian Peacock]

He who shouts loudest gets heard first.

At least 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists have been granted access to the Cop28 climate negotiations, according to an analysis.

The figure calculated by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition is a record number that raises further questions about the fossil fuel industry’s influence over this year’s UN summit, which is being run by the president of the United Arab Emirates’ national oil company.

The scale of oil and gas influence in Dubai is unprecedented, with almost four times as many industry-affiliated lobbyists than the number registered for Cop27 in Sharm el-Sheikh – which itself was a record year.

Lobbyists vying to push the interests of oil and gas companies such as Shell, Total and ExxonMobil outnumber every country delegation apart from Brazil (3,081), which is expected to run Cop30 in 2025, and the host country, which registered 4,409 attenders.

Fossil fuel lobbyists also outnumber official Indigenous representatives (316) by seven to one – another sign, say campaigners, that oil and gas industry profits are being prioritised over a sustainable planet and frontline communities...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... mate-talks

[Brian Peacock]

Tuvalu is home to 11,000 people and literally sinking. It's expected to be the first nation to entirely disappear due to climate change.



20mins

[JimC]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-12-07/ ... /103198354

Australian mining magnate and climate campaigner Andrew Forrest has lashed out in an extraordinary outburst aimed at oil and gas supremos, saying their heads should be "put on spikes".

"Fossil fuel producers are so much better at capturing politicians, which they do here, than they are at capturing any carbon."

[Brian Peacock]

Great soundbite.

[macdoc]

as I was saying ... the world needs the FF expertise.v

“Technically we’re confident — any tech like this takes longer than expected to get into truly commercial territory, but the building blocks are not brand new and we think the system is proven,” he says. “The financial interest is there, and I think everyone likes the ‘swords to plowshares’ story, the delicious irony of this ultimate green energy technology being born out of the scariest of the oil and gas technologies.”

https://www.insidehook.com/culture/eavo ... ource=digg