Climate change denialism – Page 3

May 27, 2023May 24, 2023

Chevron has created a large set of carbon offsets and they appear worthless, says research

Chevron has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2030 through a carbon offset scheme. It is notable, that Chevron sells a product which is totally incompatible with carbon zero emissions.

This new research suggests that their carbon offsets are worthless, and therefore the emissions of Chevron will not change at all.

Corporate Accountability, a non-profit which did the research, found that 93% of the offsets that Chevron bought and counted are so environmentally problematic as to be worthless.

A carbon offset scheme is considered worthless, if its linked to a forest or plantation (or green energy project that does not lead to additional carbon capture. In other words, it is great to pay countries to keep their forests standing, indeed this is essential, not one new tonne of carbon is pulled out of the air by protecting the forest, so the carbon Chevron releases has not been removed from the air.

This is for a simple reason – it is not capturing new emissions. It is fantastic to not cause new emissions, but stopping new emissions is not the same as catching carbon to offset emissions that you are creating.

How did Chevron think this was acceptable.

Carbon offset is very simple: if I emit 1 million tonnes of carbon, and then pay to replant a rainforest in Tanzania that can take 1 million tonnes out of the atmosphere, this carbon remains locked as long as the rainforest continues to stand. Another idea would be to capture 1 million tonnes of carbon and bury it deep in the earth, to lock it away for millions of year.

April 28, 2023April 27, 2023

UK government backsliding on environment? two clues and an how is Australia doing

The government of the UK has been talking the talk for a significant period of time. At times they have suggested some policies that should move in the right direction, unfortunately they have often reversed these relatively quickly.

An example of this is the governments green housing grants – advertised as intending to improve the UK housing to work more efficiency. Unfortunately, it was cut too soon, had perhaps 1% of the investment needed to get the whole job done, and proved to merely be a handout to building companies.

So what has caught my eye this time?

A suggestion that oil and gas can be part of the UK net zero strategy? No carbon capture scheme (CCS) has ever worked large scale, and furthermore, none have captured all of the pollution. Far from moving away to fossil fuels, the UK intends to create a new wave of oil and gas exploration – and trying to justify this by suggesting that all the carbon will be caught. Of 13 CCS projects carried out recently, a study found that – 1 was cancelled before start, 2 failed, 7 underperformed, which leaves only 3 to have succeeded. A success rate of 23%. Looking back, out of the 39 million tonnes of carbon dioxide caught worldwide through CCS, more than 70% was used for Enhanced Oil Recovery – in other words of the 3 projects that performed, less than 1 of them would have actually helped to reduce carbon emissions. SO ARE WE ACTUALLY TRYING TO CUT EMISSION IN THE UK?
The UK has just scrapped a top climate diplomatic role. As roles like this are one of the simple ways that a country shows what its priorities- countries who are paying attention will be saying this means that the UK is no longer concentrating on global warming. The FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) said the climate crisis remained of “utmost importance” – while this may be true ?!? it certainly sends the wrong signal.

How is Australia doing?

We need to start reducing emissions at some point – this seems self evident, if we are to meet any of our carbon reduction goals. In Australia the labour and Greens have done a deal that might actually improve policy covering Australia’s biggest polluters.

While the new ideas is complicated, it changes the safeguard mechanism to take the country closer to meeting the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

While Australia’s government has been talking the right talk recently, the Australian newspapers have published fear mongering by the fossil fuel companies – forcing up prices, put domestic gas supply at risk, destroy jobs and “kill foreign investment” in the coal industry, The Daily Telegraph published a story which claimed the changes to the safeguard mechanism would risk $96 billion of energy projects – and that should be seen as “coal hard facts”.

One coal boss told the Australian that the changes to the safeguard mechanism were built on a political objective to push a “base demonisation of fossil fuels” that would threaten Australias role as a “Reliable energy exporter” for the region. This is so completely illiterate of the science as to be laughable (if it was not for the fact that many people will listen).

A former editor of the Australian Chris Mitchel wrote that Environmental journalists and the “left media” were “in a frenzy” over the most recent release from the UNs climate panel – he claimed that they are missing the elephant in the room, that climate change has failed to arrive.

Despite what many in the fossil fuel industry wish to claim, it is not hard to see climate change, indeed it is all around us. Mitchell claimed that the world would not, and could not do without fossil fuels – though if you don’t believe that the climate has been effected, then this is an easier position to reach.

What is clear, is that while the voices against doing what i needed to leave a world we wish to for future generations, have not shut up, in most instances they are not winning.

April 16, 2023April 27, 2023

Rishi Sunak – the UK prime minister is not planning for the future, having chosen oil and gas over renewables

The UK likes to toot its horn for its progress in climate change mitigation. It is certainly true that the country is in many areas moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, it appears that in many instances, this is despite rather than because of the British government. Thankfully in the UK the move to electric cars appears to be relentless, which will deal with a significant minor portion of the UK emissions.

The UK government has removed its support for solar panels, and withdrew most of the support for the green housing grant scheme before it was finished (this was despite its positive reviews and how many people wished to take advantage).

Despite the governments target of reducing emissions by 68% below 1990 levels, there is a significant gap between the target, and what the government is planning to do to meet it. At the current time (over 6 and a half years out) the government is admitting it will only meet 92% of its cuts, and this is considered a generous prediction.

So why is the government not ramping up its support of carbon cutting industries -not least because it has repeatedly been shown that if this is done effectively it can grow the economy and work out as the cheaper option.

Given our promise to reach net zero by 2050 we cannot afford to fall behind before 2030, yet this is what this review says our government is currently heading towards.

April 8, 2023March 31, 2023

Resolution to ban the sale of electric cars in Wyoming from 2035 effectively dead

A group of republican state lawmakers introduced a resolution that called for the sale of electric cars to be phased out by 2035. Apparently, the resolutions sponsor does not want them banned (in which case a very poorly worded resolution) he just wanted to make a statement about the phasing out of gas-powered vehicles in other states.

So why was all this undertaken? Apparently a group of the states republican lawmakers are aiming to safeguard the oil and gas industries.

It was suggested that the bill would hinder the states ability to trade with other states “Wyoming’s vast stretches of highway, coupled with the lack of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, make the widespread use of electric vehicles impracticable for the state” so the bill stated.

This is frankly stupid: at the moment there is little charging infrastructure, because there are few electric cars. However, the ban is intended to come into force in 2035 which is roughly 2 whole car cycles into the future. Do these people really believe that there wont be more charging infrastructure by then?

Among the reason cited are the following:

Batteries used in electric vehicles could contain critical minerals whose “domestic supply is limited and at risk for disruption”
Minerals used in electric batteries are not easily recyclable or disposable, meaning that municipal landfills in the state could be required to develop practices to dispose of these minerals in a safe and responsible manner
The proliferation of electric vehicles at the expense of gas-powered vehicles will have deleterious impacts on Wyoming’s communities and will be detrimental to Wyoming’s economy and the ability for the country to efficiently engage in Commerce

Lets take these points in turn:

Point one, suggests that there will be a problem supplying the minerals required for the batteries. This is pretty ridiculous, as if this is true then they have nothing to worry about. Having said that, with the advance of sodium batteries and the increasing quantity of lithium that can be captured from many sources, it is simply not true.

Point two is also false: many of these minerals are very valuable, and it is far cheaper to extract minerals from former batteries than from the ground. There is a rapidly growing industry to extract as much of these minerals as is possible for reuse. Will municipals have to be able to deal with some of these issues, of course, and they will adapt easily as they have many times in the past.

Point three is likely to be true, and is I believe the sole real reason. This move was intended to stop the electric vehicle industry before it got going in the state to protect the oil and gas industry (and the large contributions that flow to politicians from these businesses. I would argue that it makes the politicians look both stupid and corrupt.

The resolutions sponsor said that he did not really want to ban electric cars, but merely make a statement about phasing out gas powered vehicles in other states. Of course what should really be remembered, is that while the environmental catastrophe that we are facing needs an end to combustion engine cars, the cost savings are so extreme, that the number of combustion engine cars people want to by in 12 years is likely to be extremely low.

It is fact that, not only are electric cars quickly reaching similar sticker price to combustion engine cars, but even now over the lifetime of the car, they are vastly cheaper – with most people paying hundreds rather than thousands to fuel them each year.

March 27, 2023March 21, 2023

Republicans in Wyoming are trying to squash the electric car, to save the fossil fuel industry

In December Oregan republican officials approved regulations that would ban the sale of gasoline powered cars from 2035. This is fantastic news, but it appears that it is one step forwards and one back – Wyoming republicans are looking to ban the sale of all electric vehicles, in what lawmakers are calling an effort to preserve the states fossil fuel industry.

If you live in Wyoming, make sure you do not vote for any of these men, unless you want them fighting for climate change, and against cleaner, cheaper and safer cars

March 26, 2023March 21, 2023

Subsidies are supposed to support what are good, and not what are bad, so why has the UK government spent 20 billion more on fossil fuels than renewables in the last 8 years?

The UK likes to be seen as a country pulling its weight when it comes to the climate change battle. Unfortunately, they give the game away though when they subsidize fossil fuels by 20 billion more than they do renewables.

What is worse, is that 1/5 of the money for fossil fuels went to directly support new extraction and mining.

In the last 8 years, 60 billion has been spent supporting renewable energy generation, however 80 billion has gone on fossil fuels. Indeed 2020 was the first year when renewables got more money than fossil fuels, but each year since fossil fuels are back ahead.

The government claimed that this analysis was misleading as we would still need some fossil fuels as part of our move towards our net zero target – while this might explain why we need some fossil fuel investment, it does not explain why this little need is greater than the money we need to put into renewables – which must eventually supply all our energy needs.

March 22, 2023March 21, 2023

If Europe wants to cut emissions faster, does this require a carbon tariff?

At the moment, there is a serious problem facing the world in global warming. The developed countries in the world are making moves to cut their emissions faster than the rest of the world.

If we are not careful, carbon tax can simply mean things need to be made on the other side of the world and shipped here

While this is only right, given the historical emissions that developed countries have already released, carbon tariffs are still going to be necessary.

You might ask why?

January 15, 2023January 9, 2023

Rare good news from USA. Manchin tried to attach energy bill to appropriations legislation: failed

In the USA, much to the frustration of many politicians, it is possible to attach legislation to another bill, even when there is nothing that links the two. In this case Jo Minchin’s legislation would have deregulated and changed permitting reforms for fossil fuel projects, and were supposed to be attached to a must pass defence bill. This ability to attach irrelevant legislation must be ended.

In other words, had he been allowed to do it, the bill would have had to be passed, as the defence part was required.

January 13, 2023January 9, 2023

The worlds 3 most destructive industries are fossil fuels, farming and fisheries, yet all three are protected by (and subsidized) by governments

Unfortunately these 3 activities appear to be most responsible for collapse or incredible pressure on ecosystems across the globe.

Both fossil fuel extraction and farming have required huge areas to be deforested

January 9, 2023January 9, 2023

Is the conservative party in the UK (and perhaps similar parties around the world) supporting of climate change doubt and climate change denial

The mountain of evidence which shows that climate change is real is enormous. The temperature has increased, and all of the evidence points towards carbon emissions being the reason.