Category: Emission reduction

Posted on

Manchin has made millions from coal since joining the senate, and he may be able to block Biden’s plan to halve greenhouse gas emissions

This website was designed to simplify wildlife travel – and we are making progress on this (slowly- terrible timing, given the epidemic), however without significant and rapid cuts to the worlds fossil fuel emissions, impacts from global warming will destroy many wildlife habitats so it is of importance.

Climate change is increasingly causing changes in rainfall. This is turning rainforests to savannahs and savannahs to deserts.

Without dealing with climate change, there will be far fewer ecosystems in which to save the wildlife.

This is why the USA is important. At this point the USA emits roughly 16% of the worlds warming gases.

Continue reading “Manchin has made millions from coal since joining the senate, and he may be able to block Biden’s plan to halve greenhouse gas emissions”
Posted on

The British government have decided to ban burning coal for electricity one year earlier in 2024

Coal is one of the dirtiest power sources, and increasingly around the world it is recognized that its burning must stop if we are to retain a planet easy to live on.

Later this year, there will be a climate conference held in Glasgow and the British government have been keen to make sure that it moves things forwards – if sea levels rise as much as predicted, life in the UK will change dramatically, not least as the UK could become an archipelago.

Continue reading “The British government have decided to ban burning coal for electricity one year earlier in 2024”
Posted on

A reduction of African great apes of 80% by 2050?

Current prediction is great apes will lose 80% of their habitats by 2050

Of the great ape species, 3 out of the 4 non human species live in Africa. This is why it is so alarming the current estimates are that by 2050 great habitat will have reduced by 80%.

This is also a huge concern for the rest of the world. An 80% reduction in rainforest cover in Africa could make halting global warming impossible. 

Obviously there are multiple strands of global warming and halting species loss. Unfortunately this could sink both problems into impossible or near impossible to solve.

Furthermore, there are other sad facts about this idea. Farmland rarely benefits the people who live in its vicinity. The huge plantations of Indonesia have destroyed the rainforests but they have not lifted living standards, indeed in many places they have eradicated the ability for locals to live – forcing them to leave their home.

Game reserves require significant staff to look after the guests. Furthermore, there are a great deal of resources that can be extracted without destroying the trees above. This allows locals to increase their standard of living, while at the same time allowing the rainforests to stay standing and the wildlife that lives there to continue to thrive.

It would seem that it should be possible to dig deep mines under rainforests without cutting the forest down first. Obviously we come back to the problem of poaching that might increase with the mine workers, but the simple fact is that most mines do not disturb the surface (except for the mine entrance). It likely increases mine costs, but given the wealth of minerals that are thought to lie under the Congo rainforest it should be more than worth it.

I do not want to have to explain to my grand children, why there are no great rainforests left in Africa. I have only visited one rainforest (that of the Udzungwas in East Tanzania), but apart from the environmental services that these places provide there are many parts of the planet which rapidly turn to desert if you remove the rainforests covering the ground.

Posted on

The worlds energy imbalance doubled between 2005 and 2019

The world is warming. This is something that is now essentially settled. Despite fossil fuel companies arguing the reverse, it was their research 40 years ago (and more) that brought the concerns of global warming first to the attention of humans (though initially they kept these discoveries quiet, and it has only come to light in recent years).

This new research shows that the world is now trapping twice as much energy as it was just 15 years ago.

As around 90% of this energy ends up in the oceans, this is a big problem. While the southern ice cap sits largely on land, the Northern icecap floats on the oceans. This is unfortunately one of the feedback loops that we know about. Ice reflects sunlight (and therefore heat) back into space. As the oceans warm this ice melts, replacing white reflective surface with deep blue absorbing surface – meaning that the oceans then absorb still more heat.

The unfortunate conclusion of the study was that unless this uptake of heat slows fast bigger shifts in climate should be expected.

Posted on

World leaders are falling short again on delivering on their promises

One of the biggest issues that have been recognised, is that a similar route to prosperity is not open to the developing world. As Europe and north America developed their economy they emitted huge amounts of carbon – much of our power was created by burning coal.

In order to help developing countries jump this stage completely and move straight to renewables, the west had promised money. Developed countries had together committed to 72 billion a year to make this happen. While this sounds like a great deal, when you remember that without it, we are on course for devastating levels of global warming, it comes more into balance.

It was hoped that the G7 could boost this process in advance of Glasgow COP26. Given the G7 accounts for 60% of the worlds wealth, but its population accounts for only 10% of the global population, you would think that we could afford roughly 10 billion a year to be able to continue to live in a hospitable environment. Now of course, this is not all that we need to do – we also need to cut our own emissions to zero as fast as possible, however, there is much money to be made in this work.

The COVID epidemic has taken everyone’s attention off global warming. This is understandable, but we now need to refocus and make the changes that are required as quickly as possible.

Posted on

Re-emergence of sails?

Freight shipping has a huge carbon footprint. It is true that the carbon footprint is far lower than freight carried by air, however this does not help.

However, it is also true that these ships do not travel particularly fast. With the new kite sails designs where a kite with roughly 100 square meters area, and the ability to be flown above 100m – an area where the wind speeds and directions are far more reliable.

Kite freight ships are becoming a reality quick
Continue reading “Re-emergence of sails?”
Posted on

Students have protested at the Science museum in London over shell funding a climate crisis exhibition

It does seem to be rather self-serving, if you are putting together a exhibition on the threat that the climate crisis is producing, and you allow one of the biggest oil and gas companies in the world to fund it.

Much of the exhibition talks about carbon capture and storage (something that has not been demonstrated at significant scale, and yet would have to be catching billions of tonnes of carbon per year if it is to have a chance of helping) as well as nature based solutions.

The police cleared the building at the end of the day, ending what had been intended to be an overnight occupation.

It certainly seems that shell is trying to whitewash their company (should that be greenwash) and this should not be allowed. Rather, shell should be spending thousands of times more money on actually solving the climate crisis. Furthermore, ideas like carbon capture should not be allowed to be touted, until it has been demonstrated at scale. Finally, there is another problem. As far as the climate crisis is concerned, any captured carbon should be locked away for millions of years, yet at the moment the majority is either used to help with oil and gas extraction, or is turned into synthetic fuels – neither of these help in any way with forestalling the continued move towards run-away climate change.

SHELL MUST DO BETTER.

Posted on

Solving the Climate crisis and biodiversity loss together

Yesterday I was writing about a series of dams that have collapsed in Brazil. We need to remember that there are two imminent threats that we are facing in the natural world.

  1. The world is warming. This is going to make life far harder for our children
  2. We are loosing much of the wilderness on the planet. Unfortunately we rely on this to survive in the long-term

We need to cut carbon emissions dramatically, we know as the human race that if we do not cut emissions dramatically and very fast, our planet will go through horrific change from the loss of the ice caps (and the resulting sea level rise) to the desertificion of large parts of the planet – some of this previously being rainforest.

If we cannot halt the loss of areas such as rainforests, the problem becomes even larger as we destroy one of our largest carbon sinks.

In the west, we have a responsibility to not only cut our own emissions to net zero in the space of a few decades, we must also help developing countries grow their own economies and increase the standard of living for their citizens without destroying what remains of the ecosystems that still exist.

Posted on

China must close 600 coal-fired power plants early to hit their own climate target – but this could save money

China has stated that they will peak their emissions by 2030 and hit carbon neutrality by 2060. These targets are just about acceptable in terms of meeting the human races target of holding temperature raise to 1.5 degrees C.

Continue reading “China must close 600 coal-fired power plants early to hit their own climate target – but this could save money”
Posted on

How much electricity does it take to reform fossil fuels? drive an electric instead

Conservatives estimates suggest that it takes 6kwh to reform one gallon of fuel (a gallon is roughly 4.54 litres). One gallon carries an average fossil fuel car roughly 24 miles.

How far will 6kwh carry an electric car? If you drive a porsche taycan you get around 3.6 miles per kwh, giving you a range of 21 miles, with a tesla 3 this range would increase to over 25 miles.

Continue reading “How much electricity does it take to reform fossil fuels? drive an electric instead”
See Animals Wild

Read more news

Join as a wild member
to list your wild place & log in

Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in

Join as an Associate member
to assist as a writer, creator, lister etc & to log in

List a wild destination

List a destination in
the shadow of man

List a hide for animals more easily seen this way

Highlight some news
missed, or submit a
one-off article

Browse destinations for fun or future travel

Temporary membership
start here if in a hurry

Casual readers and watchers