The climate change debate continues.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Interesting court case: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/05/26/shell-oil-verdict-could-trigger-a-wave-of-climate-litigation-against-big-polluters/?sh=771fa1df1a79

 

I picked up this from a trade terminal news feed, where they said the legal argument rested on arguments presented in the book, "Revolution Justified: Why Only the Law Can Save Us Now", which was written by the environmental lawyer in the case. He argues there is incontrovertible proof that warming beyind 1.5 degrees c will cause catastrophic damage and companies that ignores this, is doing so consciously. And from that. companies who don't do what they need will be negligent.. etc..

 

 

[onetrack]

Wow, Larisa Alwin looks like a dedicated Hanging Judge!  

 

https://climatesafety.info/climaterights/

 

The part that worries me is if these lawyers go after oil producers and oil producing countries, the end result may be they curtail their oil production, thus creating another "oil shortage" (as in 1973 and 1979) - and we will all pay dearly as petrol and diesel soar past AUD$3 a litre. 

[pmccarthy]

This case would be useful if it can provide proof of the theory that human contributions to CO2 levels can cause increased temperatures. I have not seen any proof, but I have seen ample evidence that the theory is wrong. It would be good to get evidence presented and tested in court.

[Marty_d]

9 hours ago, onetrack said:

Wow, Larisa Alwin looks like a dedicated Hanging Judge!  

 

https://climatesafety.info/climaterights/

 

The part that worries me is if these lawyers go after oil producers and oil producing countries, the end result may be they curtail their oil production, thus creating another "oil shortage" (as in 1973 and 1979) - and we will all pay dearly as petrol and diesel soar past AUD$3 a litre. 

And while that will cause pain in the short to medium term, it'll make EV's and solar generation far more attractive.

[pmccarthy]

[octave]

5 minutes ago, pmccarthy said:

 

 

I think I could be described as a fossil fuel divestor when it comes to my personal investing.   I can only speak for myself but this cartoon does not describe me.     I am definitely not  against using fossil fuels as raw materials for durable products but I am simply against burning it.    

[nomadpete]

There are degrees of hypocrisy in any journey to a different paradigm.

 

That doesn't nullify the virtue of heading towards a better system of living.

 

PM's hypocrite is a fair representation of many progressive thinkers but his representation of a person rendered  naked if they embrace the changes of embracing new technology, is totally false.

 

Nobody claims that new technology instantly solves all the problems created by established methods (fuels in this case). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't move forwards to a better future.

[spacesailor]

Before the oil age, people had nice cloths, ( rich people  ) made from natural fibers. 

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

Cotton, wool, hemp, flax, leather... just for starters.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Bamboo seems to be the next big thing, too..

 

There is no doubt that oil and gas and coal, etc, have been instrumental in allowing society to progress as relatively cheap forms of mass energy that would take many horses, donkeys, and the like. But that doesn't alter the fact that burning them (and others) in increasing doesn't release enough CO2 to tip the scales the wrong way in terms of climate change - and there is more than enough evidence to show it; the deniers also seem to be decreasing in number.

 

The other thing, to take the logic further, is that the discovery/invention of the wheel was probably a bigger game changer. But, people keep finding better ways to improve on it.. different materials, solid wheels v. hub and spoke, solid tyres, pneumatic tubes/tyres, tubeless, arranging them, etc. If we said at the beginning of the wheel, "Wow, what a great invention. It has transformed out lives. Let's stop progressing now because life and the use of out materials just doesn't get better than this", we wouldn't be where we are today. Also, forget the climate change, a big story here is how air pollution is causing all sorts of other problems and is directly attributable to thousands of deaths a year.. Don't we want to find a better way to provide energy that improves on what we have today?

 

The argument that it has served us well to now and we shouldn't change is a furphy.. The argument that hydrocarbon fuels (or burning of them) doesn't contribute to climate change is a furphy by all stats (we have presented them on this forum time and time again).

 

EVs are not the be all and end all for climate change, either... The CO2 involved in their manufacture is sky high, and depending on the engineering channel you follow in YouTube, can take anything from 3 years to 20 years to break even on the CO2 ledger for the average family car (trucks etc are totally different as their mileage is a lot higher).

 

The airlines also recognise their contribution and at least one is looking to ameliorate it: https://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/airbus-launches-new-sustainable-aviation-fuel-trial/

 

The reality is you don't get anything for free, but it is minimising the energy loss for the energy put in.

 

 

[kgwilson]

The entire issue regarding the current facts that producing EVs and other environmentally friendly things use large amounts of fossil fuels and produce large amounts of CO2 to me is just what normally happens in a transition from one process to another.

 

So long as we don't go past the tipping point during the transition period, and this may be decades, eventually all things manufactured will be done using sustainable and environmentally friendly materials and energy. The thing is we have to start somewhere and we have to start using existing materials and technologies. EVs are only a tiny piece of a giant jigsaw on the long road to the survival of humanity.

[onetrack]

The part that worries me is when we get major change driven by lawyers, instead of technological advances. We've seen what excessive and outrageous litigation has done to numerous other areas of our societies (to our detriment) - and so much of what we are forced to do today, is driven by the "legal ramifications", if we don't obey the "rules" that have been set by legal precedents.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes.. EVs are not the be all and end all... More the current in vogue example...

 

OT.. I agree with the concern that lawyers can drive change before tech is ready, but in the same vein, it has been political pressure that has brought to bear massive reductions in emissions in ICE engines over the last 20 or 30 years.. As the existing technology and energy prices was cheap and readily accessible while developing nice profits, there was no incentive for private corporations to change. There would eventually be as extracting oil,for example, has become more expensive as easily accessible supplies retreat, but the damage would be 10 fold (my guess) that what it is before corporations would act.

 

So political pressure had been brought to bear on many different industries. I recall reading car magazines in Aus in the 80s where ther Euro manufacturers would bemoan the EC/EU for introducing new regulations reducing allowable emissions long before any technology existed to make meeting the limits practical. But, they always managed to find a way.. .and this process continues today (although VW and MBZ  have tried to cheat the system.. and some others no doubt). Given the case was a political rather than criminal case, a judge (admittedly unelected official - and not representing an elected official) has said, clean up your act or else. They will develop the means to do it..they have a big incentive. If it really becomes an issue, they will have a political process to appeal to, as well.

 

I agree there is a big risk in allowing change to be decided in the court room.. but I would argue outside the US (and it seems increasingly Australia), the legal systems when you get to the facts beyond what is reported in the news, usually holds up well... (another debate).

 

 

[spacesailor]

I  Disagree! .

The emission debacle is false, as pumping air into an exhaust Does not lower the True amount of carbon produced, neither E C G, making less power per litre of fuel used, is also false.

spacesailo

[spacesailor]

Bring back Hemp.

When it,s use is ended,

SMOKE IT !.

LoL

spacesailor

[octave]

AGL unveils plan to transform Liddell coal site with solar, hydro plant

[Old Koreelah]

6 hours ago, octave said:

AGL unveils plan to transform Liddell coal site with solar, hydro plant

That plan surprises me. The Hunter valley has lots of sunshine, but a lot more cloudy days than places a bit further west. I guess this proposal wouldn’t be considered but for the existing infrastructure at Liddell. 
 

This won’t be Liddell’s first foray into solar; years ago a pilot plant used the sun to preheat water before it went into the boilers.

 

Liddell also seems to have potential as a pumped-hydro site. The lake is right next door and a couple of km away is a dirty great hole in the ground.

 

 

[octave]

 

Silagy said:

We have built more than 40 solar energy centers throughout the  state and we are well on our way to installing more than 30 million solar panels by 2030.  And we are not stopping there. With the construction of the world’s largest solar-powered battery facility and an innovative green hydrogen pilot project, we are leading the state and nation in producing energy that is reliable, affordable, and better for our environment.

There are people… in our industry, who say, ‘You can not be clean and affordable. You can not be clean and reliable’… We have proven that is not the case.

Florida Power & Light blows up its last coal plant, will replace with solar

Edited June 18, 2021 by octave

[Old Koreelah]

My Greenpeace mates have caught out the amoral gun-for-hire lobbyists:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/30/exxonmobil-lobbyists-oil-giant-carbon-tax-pr-ploy

[Dax]

Haven't read all the posts, so may repeat what others have said. Sadly our entire approach to the future and our climate/environment will never change, because the social and economic system we use forbids change.

 

The political parties run their agenda or economic growth and rationalisation/globalisation, which can't happen without population growth, as consumerism is the only way to have constant economic growth.

 

This means nothing can change until the insane ideology of economic growth is stopped and we move to economic sustainability, technological and environmental growth. The boom bust mantra of economic/profit growth, relies upon a throw away society, not a sustainable one and that is the barrier to change.

 

We've known for almost 100 years what our approach to the future was doing to the environment and climate, we were warned in the 1970s we have 20 years to turn it around and have done nothing but made things worse. What is a happening with our climate now, was predicted to not happen until later this century and we are seeing changes way beyond that time line now.

 

Now we are at a situation where no matter what is done it is way to late, our climate will continue to change faster and faster as we breed more and more people, dig up and destroy forests and biological life.

 

What most don't understand or are unaware of is the hidden problems rapidly racing towards us that will bring our societies down fast and there is nothing we can do unless we remove from the planet the current political and ideological insanity forced upon us by the deranged ideologues controlling our societies.

 

A major problem is plastics, which release huge amounts of chemicals when their temperatures are changed, the most biological destructive is oestrogen, which are turning marine life into non breeding nothings and the same is happening with humans, hence the massive rise in IVF and low sperm counts in men.

 

Then we have the unstoppable collapse of the ecology and food chains, we are currently taking millions of tonnes of marine life out of the oceans and water ways a day to feed the rapidly growing number of humans. This is unsustainable and to my mind, the reason we are seeing more and more shark attacks, because our oceans are fast becoming depleted of fish and sharks are now looking elsewhere for food and that's humans.

 

To give you an example, the heavily chemically saturated Atlantic salmon from Tas that people eat, to produce 1 kilo of that fish, takes 18kg of wild fish. They trawl the seas collecting everything, turn them into meal, add lots of chemicals and a carcinogenic red dye, which is banned in most places. That's why your salmon looks so red, naturally it is pink.

 

Once the oceans food chains collapse, the seas will become dead and that will bring down bird food chains, which will bring down land food chains and human food chains.

 

We passed the point of no return last century, now it's just a matter of when it all starts falling like a stack of cards and no one will do anything, ideological clones have no idea of reality, all they have in the minds is their ideological fantasies and they completely reject anything to do with the true reality of our planet. You can see that every day, when any politician opens their mouths and the over educates elites back them all the way.

[pmccarthy]

All true. We have a crisis due to population growth and endless economic expansion. The climate change hypothesis and ensuing debate is an intended political distraction from the real and pressing problems.

[kgwilson]

I remember Greta Thunbergs first speech at the UN and it struck me right between they eyes. The one paragraph that I always remember is

 

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!"

 

I still think this is the best and most succinct statement on climate change that has ever been made. It made basically no difference to politicians though who continue to push the unsustainable growth myth and will continue to do so until extinction. Our only hope is that the young with Gretas attitude finally make real change happen. Unfortuately I can't see it happening in my lifetime which at best is another 25 to 30 years

 

The entire transcript 

 

 

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

 

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

"You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

"So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.

"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.

"There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

"You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

"We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

"Thank you."

•  

[spacesailor]

If the Entire human population was removed, 1 million years ago , the global warming would still be happening.

It Started the First centry, after the " Snowball Earth " !.

How can Humanity make the sun expand, which is happening now.

Stop blaming the Human race for being here.

spacesailor

[nomadpete]

For some unfathomable reason, only those too young, or too old to be CEO's or in government seem able to see the big problems that MUST be addressed.

 

Overpopulation

Extinctions

Food security and diversity

Economic balance instead if impossible eternal economic growth.

 

Many of us on this forum have discussed and debated such stuff but our media only pitch information to the lowest common denominator of society, and decision makers are only motivated to act in self enrichment at all costs.

 

It's all just bread and circuses.

 

Eg, we have a global coronavirus that is mutating into a more dangerous strain because globally the world's decision makers have failed to implement basic old fashioned (somewhat inconvenient) quarantine.

 

Exceptions are now made for 59000 footy fans to crowd into a stadium. Clearly a grossly irresponsible decision.

 

Exceptions are made for important individuals to travel internationally.

 

The term "lockdown" is used by media to hysterically describe what is only a temporary, partial restriction of nonessential travel. "Dont leave home..... Except to go shopping or to go to work, or to do childminding, or to take kids to school..." That's not a real lockdown.

[nomadpete]

Spacey, nobody is ignoring the long term climate changes that occur naturally. Nor ignoring the possibility of comet or asteroid collision.

 

But humans are releasing a significant amount of pollution. It's tipping the long term changes that were already happening. So, now the changes are happening in a human lifetime instead of maybe ten thousand years.

Even if our input wasn't the basic cause, we shouldn't be pushing it over the edge. Even Mars has been found to be the end result of runaway climate change. That alone should be a big warning to us.