Wildlife and conservation new, wild travel information and links for booking
While these fuels power much of the creation of electricity around the world, as well as most transport and heating, they all need to either be left in the ground or 100% of their emissions. Below is a roundup of a group of articles of importance on these subjects.
Uk’s £22 billion carbon capture pledge follows surge in lobbying by fossil fuel industry, records show
Continue reading “Oil, Gas and coal roundup ( more in future)”
The car industry has done a great job over the last roughly 30 years, of confusing people. It was once the case, that there were 2 different states – the first cars were electric (so suggesting that modern electric cars are a new technology is ridiculous) and then we developed internal combustion engine vehicles. This meant that there were 2 different types of propulsion 1. fossil fuels (petrol, diesel) or 2. electric cars, charged from the mains.
Toyota developed the Prius back in 1997. At the time, a huge step forwards – it only had a battery of 1.3kwh, but this was enough to store energy recovered from braking and release it back, when the car was able to start moving again. This was the first mild hybrid as it is now called.
Continue reading “Motoring body saying “UK needs to ban full hybrid cars by 2030 or face net zero ‘catastrophe’ (only cars that can drive on pure electricity)”
The Ross ice shelf is vast, covering 182,000 square miles, it is only slightly smaller than France, and yet a study has shown, that the whole ice shelf can move 40 cm in just 10 minutes. These were generally caused by slips in the Whillans Ice Sheet, which is one of just a few ice flows into and through the area.
The whole shelf was found to move 6-8cm once or twice a day, triggered by these flows moving. This could be the cause of both icequakes, and fractures running through the ice (fractures are important, as they make it more likely that a section of the ice will break off the edge of Antarctica and head into the ocean. While this ice can, on occasion survive a long time – A23a broke of Antarctica in 1986 and has been floating free for much of the time since (except for a decade or so when it grounded); it was estimated to be 400m thick and weigh in at nearly 1 trillion tonnes.
This is a problem for a simple reason. Unlike the north pole, there is land under the ice in Antarctica. This means that while in the north pole, the ice sheet is already in the sea, so its melting cannot increase sea level, Antarctic ice all does increase sea levels.
The Ross ice shelf is known to have collapsed 120,000 years ago during the last interglacial period, and contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 11.5m (this would also cause another 2m of sea level rise because of the glaciers which would no longer be held back).
A Dutch startup, is trialling mitigating this in the Arctic, by pumping sea water onto the ice. This then freezes, thickening the ice. It is possible that this might work in the short term, however, what is clear, is that the only long-term solution, is to stop burning fossil fuels, so as to halt the heating of the earths climate.
Do not worry, this website is still moving forwards! If you look closely at the maps on the home page, you will find that the number of destinations has been growing over time. I have been working on adding the rest of these.
However, I could not help but report on this GOOD JUDGEMENT
This is fantastic news. The giving of these licences is completely against the governments policies, and in their own assessments, they ignored the carbon footprint of the eventual use of the fuel (only taking into account the carbon emissions of extraction).
Climate activists, and even certain people in both houses of parliament have been pointing out the absurdity of this position- a position I might add, that had to go to the supreme court of the UK in order to be looked at rationally.
What does this mean? Well that is not clear, though it will require the government to explain their contradicting positions.
It is certainly a positive step forwards, as this ruling suggests that the UK courts are not going to allow the British government to make laws, and then make decisions that break those same laws.
Exxon is like many other oil companies – they have buried their head in the sand, and have continued to deny the science.
What astounds me, is that, over the last 3 years, the price of Exxon shares has gone up 3 times over. This means that the majority of people who are investing in the market, believes either that there is a killing to be made from Exxon before it goes out of business, or climate change is wrong (it is true that investment in Exxon 3 years ago would have tripled, but a long-term investment is unlikely to be successful, as Exxon has to completely change its business model.
So, why is Exxon buying a shale giant?
Clearly, it thinks that there is money to be made, before the world transitions. The problem is that should Exxon be right, the world will suffer more global warming.
We already need to leave much of our known reserves of fossil fuels in the ground, Shale gas, is just more,
We need to be moving away from fossil fuels as fast as we can.
How is your family doing? As for us, we have bought a second had electric car, we have just installed our solar and thermal solar, and will in a couple of weeks, have a heat pump installed that will remove our last reliance on gas (these two moves, will have removed carbon from our travel and from our house running and heating – we also have zero carbon electricity). Obviously we still have a way to go, but we are making progress. Of course, from a finance point of view, it is a good move – it is true that our car was more expensive than anything we’ve had before, however, the purchase cost will only take 6-7 years to save back , and our house greening has a payback time of around 4 years- after that we should be several hundred pounds better off each month.
Exxon is still betting that there is more money to be made before the good times are over, however they are betting on our future.
It is foolish to invest in them, either they are right, and will make a fortune while the world suffers, or they are wrong, and this business venture will collapse.
At the current time, countries in the region in which the COP is held will chose a president. In theory, that is fine, however, in practice if this is going to continue then the middle east should be banned from hosting the conference.
So, what precisely did Sultan Al Jaber say, which was so troubling?
Firstly, he claimed that a ‘phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves'”.
He then claimed that there is ‘no science’ to suggest phasing out fossil fuels is the only way to achieve 1.5C.
After being laughed at, over this utterly insane statment, he suggested that the comment had been misinterpreted. It should be noted, that this was in response to a question from a woman, which he was relatively rude about.
Do you think this woman misunderstood?
He even had the gall to suggest that the misrepresentation was undermining his desire to reduce carbon emissions (perhaps if this is true, it can start with his huge fossil fuel company can show this?). More than 100 countries are already supportive of this.
The worlds uptake of electric cars must accelerate. This is partly underway – last year around 67 million cars were sold, but 14% of these were electric, up from just 9% the previous year. The uptake is accelerating.
It should also be noted that apart from extreme heat in the UAE, continued global warming will also damage the UAE in extreme ways. The UAE economy is 0.5% of the global economy, in the end, places like this may refuse to accept the end of oil, and will have to be bankrupted, as cars move to 100% and many other industries clean up their act.
It was only 3 years ago that the government said from 2030 there would be no more combustion engine, yet his most recent decision rolls this back (though it should be noted that he is still aiming for 80% electric car sales by 2030) along with reducing the requirements landlords to insulate their homes so it is cheaper for their renters to heat their home.
It is, unfortunately, a fact, that meat eaters create a significant extra quantity of carbon released into the air. How much? Well this varies from place to place, and product to product.
There are an increasingly large number of people who are recognizing this issue. Now while some will argue that without the meat industry, much of the UK farmland would be built on, and that this would be disastrous for the environment are missing the point. We live on an island, and as such it is in our own best interests to make sure that the worlds ice sheets do not melt.
Continue reading “If the US beef industry is deploying tricks similar to fossil fuels and smoking to delay action, what should we do?”So, one of the arguments from the fossil fuel lobby for the last 150 years is that their product is essential. The fossil fuels are the only people who can produce the base load of electricity for the grid.
There are loads of other things that can take parts of this (this is the arguments that the fossil fuel lobby put forth) such as wind turbines and solar panels – the problem is that both of these are only available some of the time. If electricity can be carried many thousands of miles, then tidal power might be able to help with this but not in the near future.
When Nuclear fission was first brought in, it was predicted that this would be the perfect base load. Unfortunately not, people don’t like living in places where a meltdown might occur, there is a large amount of nuclear material created, which needs storing for very long periods of times.
Nuclear fusion is different. It is incredibly hard to get it working, taking vast amounts of energy, and goes out if it goes out of control. As a result, a nuclear fusion plant cannot melt down, and you could not make a nuclear fusion bomb.
We are finally making some progress, though as it has always been, predictions as to when it will be ready lie 2 decades out. As if on schedule, late last year the UK government said that the world first nuclear fusion plant could generate carbon free energy by 2040 (18 years out). It is true that the government is putting hundreds of millions of pounds towards this goal, but it is still to far out – in other words, if it takes that long, the human race will need to have cut carbon emissions to near zero without the help of nuclear fusion. Indeed even the EU has referred to it as a possible way to save us from climate change – however, given there is still so much research to be done, we cannot rely on this.
This plant in Nottinghamshire could be replacing coal power plants in the future, though coal is being rapidly phased out anyway. In theory, it is calculated that nuclear fusion could create 4 million times as much energy with the same space, as coal oil or gas.
It is an exciting prospect, and the UK is one of the countries leading the way, never-the-less we are no where near that yet.
The first papers linking carbon emissions and fossil fuel burning were released a long time ago. How long ago? Try John Henry of the Smithsonian Institution at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in 1856. Entitled, “Circumstances affecting the heat of the sun’s rays,” the paper was the first research linking increased carbon dioxide with warmer air.
That is 166 years ago!
We recognize that fossil fuels are the problem, yet their paid lobbyists continue to get access to politicians across the globe.
It is true that fossil fuel companies usually have little real power. Instead, they rely on the power they get through donating money to people of influence. How can we break this “soft power”?
What have they done?
Join as an ambassador supporter to
support this site, help save wildlife
and make friends & log in
