Speaking of the petrochemical companies, an activist group to which I belong, "Beyond Plastics" has drawn to my attention a scientist who is promoting plastics as "green". Here is a link to a summary of his book: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cont-ed-62/olli/22-winter/plastics.pdf. It's offensive that he states environmentalists are getting their information from the web and spreading misinformation. He neglects the health risks of plastic in everything we eat, drink and breathe. His premise is "yes plastic is wasteful but so is everything". He overwhelms readers with "facts" since he is an expert. I do presentations and I like to keep abreast of climate information, which is why I value HEATED. I am trying to research his "peer reviewed data" myself. However, a respected journalist like Emily might be interested in taking up this cause. I don't think he deserves a counter argument of every point but if there is scientific research debunking just one of his talking points, it would be extremely helpful to those of us who do our best to educate our community on the need to take our climate crisis seriously. It would be much appreciated if you, Emily Atkin, or others could consider looking into this source. Thanks in advance.
I read through the expose on his book and I have seen similar before. The two most talked about areas to focus on that has the highest impact on our lives that is turning out to be an argument about myth or fact is the ingress of plastics and trace chemicals in our food and the oceans.. The other hard to believe was the impact of paper bags versus plastic bags.. still thinking about that one.
I do agree with him that in the main the media and some so called scientific environmentalist blow things way out of proportion and eventually will loose credibility.
I also do agree that governments pull the trigger on legislation by listening to the activist rhetoric rather than the scientific facts which is also a problem on many items associated with climate and pollution.
My view is that we need to eliminate waste in all forms by changing our life cycle USE of materials much more than the choice of material.
I am old enough to remember a world without plastics and its certainly been a benefit and we must ensure we are correct if we push back on the use of something so central to our improvement in living standard. We just need to stop buying stuff and then throwing it away!
This is a good article and a focus on pollution is always worthwhile whatever the source.
Look we all including industry can always do better…but according to the EPA and other controlling bodies of which there are many in USMCA, per capita and per GDP we so far do not have a significant spike in incidents and accidents although its always an ongoing regulatory and operational goal to reduce the numbers and associated costs and impact on the environment.
We do see now some significant reshoring of industry as we undertake deglobalization and this statistically may skew future numbers, but if we measure correctly we should hope to see no real trend although incidents will occur in a system of industrial activity with so many nodes and pathways to make the essential products from raw material with safety and environmental hazard profiles. The media must do a better job of framing the situation and avoiding unfair sensationalism or they will loose the attention from the general public and industry as a whole.
Last time I checked far more people die and get hurt on the road and domestic violence and self induced drug use than from industrial accidents…. but I have not checked that data recently.
Outside the USMCA and the EU it’s a far worse situation on all measures and its safe to say we do have in the west enough controls and standards to meet in place. Also financial and judicial penalties and legislations on the generation of accidents and industrial waste in all forms is increasing which is good.
We had not included natural trace gases such as CO2 and methane as pollution although new legislation is attempting to drive that, although this is being reviewed, and is a separate discussion.
We need to separate the uses of fossil resources into two categories…. energy and materials.
For that used for energy sources (electricity and heating gases) this can eventually be reduced with alternative technologies with the best being nuclear and where possible hydro … forget wind and solar it’s the wrong direction and many articles about that. Hydrogen may have a role but it’s a long way off.. and we are going to be using fossil fuels for transportation for many more years as EVs are also a huge mistake as the environmental footprint will be far worse than existing albeit cleaned up fossil fuels.
Its also clear that NetZero is not going to happen as its clear it will impinge on prosperity and many recent news articles and here is a new article on that outlook.
Regarding the other use of fossil resources, to provide materials for our modern civilization, we must realize just how much we are married to fossil materials.
Although we may be able to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to power our transportation and heat our facilities, we will always need fossil fuel materials to “make things”. The biproducts of fossil fuels are essential for our modern lifestyle, such as transportation equipment, industrial equipment, pharmaceuticals, computers, buildings, furnishings, clothes, shoes, etc., etc.
A world without fossil-fuels and the associated bi products will put us back into the mid 19th century and will mean cutting down many trees for fuel, and the hunting and killing of animals for skins and other materials and will mean hardship for many. Contemplating a world without such materials is far from realistic or viable!
The best solution is
Stop NetZero and focus on climate adaption in a naturally warming planet.
Continue to clean up the use of fossil fuels in balance with prosperity.
Focus on the reduction on the USE of these resources… as conservation is a far better approach.
It will mean ….Stop throwing things away and make them last longer…. This is a huge culture shift and even just recycling is not the best solution and worst case it goes to landfill.
Reduce wasteful packaging in all forms and disposable products. Repair rather than replace. Perform better maintenance than a tear down. Improve the efficiency of all activities with LEAN practices.
This will mean retraining consumers and our providing industries.
We are over producing and over consuming for no reason
We have become a throw away world and super consumer’s and this has to stop.
Many articles on this form of cultural sustainability.
Respectfully disagree. We need to do both, eliminate the use of fossil fuels and speed up the transition to a circular economy. EV's are a step in the right direction and there will be a market for recycling batteries when batteries reach the end of their practical life.
Sorry…. but just about everything you say is more wishful thinking than true scientific and economic reality.
Eliminating fossil fuels without anything in place that is viable to replace them with is foolish… and W&S and EVs are never going to help other than lower prosperity.
NetZero is both unnecessary and foolish, especially when its only being embraced by the western nations with the rest ramping up the use of FFs.
Plus, a focus on CO2 as a pollutant is not based on climate science and sound policy once you strip away the subjugating politics, and this will become very clear in the near future.
Suggest you read.. A Political New-Year’s Resolution On Climate Change (brainzmagazine.com)
We need to look at overall economic sustainability not just the narrow viewpoint of the circular economy.
Have you any idea what we are going to do with a world with a huge battery lifecycle problem at the supply chain scale needed to 100% implement NetZero?... the pollution from the materials extraction will dwarf any we have seen with fossil fuels.
I know you mean well and we all have an advocating spirit ….. but let’s stay with reality on such an important process or we will do more harm than good...
There you go again, Nigel. First you start with your concern about pollution and then slip in how fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are really just fine, just a few little trace gases with nothing to worry about. And when provided with several outside-the-IPCC authoritative analyses of fossil fuels generated greenhouse gases and the physics of those emissions in the oceans and atmosphere, you completely ignore the real dangers they present. And you provide no alternative physics that can make their increasing presence benign. Not to worry, Nigel. I am happy to provide you that list of studies that you've ignored and must explain in order to show how benign they are. It's an ever growing stream of data coming from all directions, so don't wait too long to ask for them again or you'll be buried.
I also find it fascinating to see you how have bent the conversation about pollutants to your favorite topic as all roads lead to your critique of NetZero, right? NetZero is an evil concept that is unnecessary if fossil fuel use is benign, right?
Nobody is saying that NetZero is an easy thing to accomplish. In fact here is a very good article that examines the very real challenges presented by NetZero. https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2207727120 The difference between your and their analysis is that they see the need to take that challenge on because of the increasing hazards of what happens if we don't take it on. They are part of the solution and you are part of the problem, Nigel.
What problem am I part of?... not agreeing with you?.. get over it.
I wanted to add value to the important issue of pollution and how to approach it, but I had to explain that CO2 is not a pollutant if I was going to talk about pollution.
Listen matey … I am not interested in sharing and wrestling with you with climate data… After reviewing both sides of the argument my conclusion has been well documented…. I don’t buy the politically driven IPCC groupthink that is based on climate models that are overstated and keep getting proved wrong.
We have no adverse climate trends that should concern us!
No one has tied CO2 to climate change without using unsubstantiated theories.
In summary… yes the climate is changing… its natural… and its mostly not us!
We now have enough scientists who I respect and have published who have declared no climate emergency and others that explain the non viability of NetZero under any circumstance.
So its clear the science is not settled and as the NetZero policies are dire and unrealistic we need further review before we prostrate our economies for no reason by activating such policies.
We have a significant level of growing doubt that we should follow such a NetZero journey with many articles and documentary on the subject.
I am not the problem… I am not trying to win ..I want truth and the best decision for all…religious groupthink wont work.
Also…
The good news!!
It’s clear that many Western governments are now experiencing a political shift in thinking on the reality and risks of following a NetZero policy, and we predict new political resolutions on the approach to climate change in the new year and beyond.
Get over you not agreeing with me? That's not even on the table for me, Nigel. The issue is not whether CO2 is a pollutant, either. Water is beneficial and essential for life, right? That doesn't mean that you can't drown in too much of it, or die of thirst, for that matter.
And the fact of the matter is that it's not a matter of wanting to or not wanting to "wrestle climate data." You can't get away with saying that the well studied physics of greenhouse gases is wrong, and say that not only is the physics incorrect, but completely fail to provide an alternative physical mechanism that explains all of that climate data more accurately. Without a testable model, you can't call it science, Nigel, and all of the alternative mechanisms that supposedly explain the data in the websites you have provided have been thoroughly discredited as inadequate, and you know it. So whether you like it or not, your sources are obligated to explain the data with testable models that perform better than the greenhouse gas models that get better and better by the day. In fact here is the latest, published (outside the IPCC, by the way in Nature) this month: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but until you provide a viable testable mechanism for the changing climate that does not have as its driving source the emissions from fossil fuels, nothing you say sticks. There is no beef, as they say.
Ok.. I did look through the article from nature that in the past has been very selective in its publications to ensure the climate crisis narrative and exclude anything else… but I held my nose and took a look.
The summary says …
“Global heating of the Earth system is unequivocal. The long-term acceleration of Earth warming aligns qualitatively with the rise in CO2 concentrations and the decline in aerosol concentration during the same period, but further investigations are necessary to properly attribute these changes.”
No argument …the planet is naturally warming and its mostly good news..
They say CO2 is increasing as it will as the warmer oceans will release more CO2
The scientists I have talked with say about 75% of the CO2 increase is natural and our contribution may be 25% and as CO2 saturates such that doubling is worth 1 deg C its hard to worry.
They go on to say that “further investigations are necessary to properly attribute these changes.”
This is because although there is correlation at present between CO2 and temperature that’s not always been the case in the past and a clear causation has not be proven..
Here is my main point …
Its clear that we do not have scientific closure within the scientific community with many disconnects so we should not be undertaking such a prosperity killer as NetZero without a much more facilitated scientific review…
Its not the job of the climate realists to prove to the UN IPCC that they are wrong it’s the job of the IPCC to prove they are right… they try to do this with failed models and a huge gap between the policy section and the scientific section in their reports plus a lot of wishful thinking agendas. So. its high time we put all involved in the same room before I would vote to put our citizens through this NetZero mess.
The good news is that this review is going to happen as its clear that many Western governments are now experiencing a political shift in thinking on the reality and risks of following a NetZero policy, and we predict new political resolutions on the approach to climate change in the new year and beyond.…
I am far from alone in this position.. I do respect yours, but I have seen much more religion than the thirst for scientific truth, and we need a much more risk management approach much more than what I have seen by many.
History has seen scientists in group think mode get it badly wrong and it took minority dissention to correct… examples. earth was flat… sun went round the earth … flight was impossible.. etc. Trump in the white house.. sorry about that last one 😊
You misquote me. I never said "without anything in place". You are also quite condescending. Net zero is essential and an extractive economy which is what fossil fuels are is what is non sustaining.
Did not mean to dis you...... but wanted to correct what you said... and what I meant is that we have no technology or budget to do NetZero in any time frame and certainly not across the globe. And its not essential in fact its unnecessary.
If you want an extractive economy try W&S and EVs.. they are far more extractive and dirty than the future with Fossil fuels…. Especially when you buy them from suppliers using coal to make these products.
There are future solutions… but they need to be economically viable or no dice.
The plastics created by plants, animals and fungi are food for something else living. So the idea of durable, fixable, reusable, recyclable items with low waste is better, but there will be leakage from this human cradle to cradle system, once we create it. So whatever substances that we use MUST not only be basically benign, but also biodegradable, and also fit into existing ecosystems. Then we can use them more abundantly and even profligately, because "Waste=Food." A great little documentary, btw, imho better than the book "Cradle to Cradle," written by one of the documentary's stars.
Strictly speaking, ammonia is not a petrochemical as it has no carbon in it. It's mostly produced by the Haber process which involves the catalytic reduction of nitrogen by hydrogen. This process is widely used in the production of fertilizer. The hydrogen is often obtained by "reforming' of methane to give CO2 and hydrogen, though hydrogen can also be produced in a variety of other ways. I wouldn't refer to hydrogen as a "petrochemical" either. There is a lot of interest in hydrogen these days since combustion of hydrogen can produce the high temperatures needed for certain industrial processes like steel production. Hydrogen now comes in various "colors." Grey hydrogen is produced by reforming without capturing the CO2. Blue hydrogen is produced by reforming with capture of the CO2. Green hydrogen comes from electrolysis with electricity generated by renewable technology. Pink hydrogen is produced by electrolysis using electricity generated by nuclear power. Lastly, white hydrogen comes from geological sources, either naturally produced or by injecting hot water into geological formations. Legislation passed by the Biden administration is pushing hydrogen energy very hard with insufficient concerns over the method of generation.
Have you seen pictures of the mining operations to extract the materials for batteries and other materials to feed the massive use of W&S… Its probably 1000 times worse than a fossil fuel driven world. Then you will need a candle to view these pictures at night and when the wind don’t blow… And just hope the lights stay on in the hospital when you get poisoned by your water source when the same toxic material leeches out into the water supply. O and also make sure you budget the use of FFs to make the W&S and batteries .. probably from coal in China.. go figure!
The experts are divided on this outcome... I would rather invest our energies on many more important things..... such as reshoring our manufacturing and improving our prosperity and our overall sustainability.... I work with viable plans not dreams.
Seen it before… I help source batteries for some of my clients engineering projects.. and many applications will benifit and glad its improving.
Look batteries and better batteries have their place but not for traction.
They say….supply chain Barriers are soluble. Although supply chains are stressed, thanks to constant innovation and in vestment, we have enough raw materials that can be sourced — equitably and sustainably — and can act fast enough to build the charging infrastructure required for the future battery-dominated energy system…. This is wishful thinking nonsense.... on supply chains watch .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNdJAZ75h4
The cost of providing charging stations is a net cost to the population. I would rather build more affordable houses and our decaying infrastructure than a charging station.
They Say…A reinforcing feedback loop of scale, cost, and quality. As the battery market grows, unit cost keeps falling and quality keeps rising. Both battery cost and energy density are on learning curves: for every doubling of battery production, costs fall by 19%-29% and the density of leading batteries rises by 7%-18%. At this rate, by 2030, battery cell costs will fall to $32-54 per kWh and top-tier batteries will have an energy density of 600-800 Wh/kg.
This is still almost 400 times worse than gasoline or diesel..
It is true that all technology does make improvements and the integrated circuit is a good example… think Moores law.. even it has a scientific limit due to thermal dynamics…
Look…science is not kind to batteries.. they convert inefficiently and store far less energy at considerable more weight and the charging infrastructure and safety is still of high concern and cost..
energy dencity of gasoline - Yahoo Canada Image Search Results
You need to stop compartmentalizing your analyses so narrowly: it's called externalizing the costs. Take for instance your claim about how much worse battery production is on the environment compared to internal combustion transportation. The mining and processing of car batteries for EVs is much more energy-intensive than the manufacturing of gas-powered vehicles. However, the total emissions produced by electric vehicles during their lifetime is significantly less than gas-powered cars. In other words, you are externalizing the costs, emissions and pollution throughout the lifetime of your internal combustion car compared to the much more efficient (80%) transfer of energy in the drive train compared to internal combustion (20%) over the lifetime of the vehicle, to say nothing about the much simpler construction of BEVs and related repairs, etc. And the cool thing is that W&S produced more energy than coal for the past few months! https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/01/wind-solar-power-provide-more-electricity-than-coal-in-usa/
And, oh yes. Fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases and are changing the earth's oceans and atmospheric chemistry. Something you still deny in order to write it out of the equation. Since your braiinz article falls short on so many of these fronts, it's difficult to take it seriously. Remove those issues, and I'm happy to discuss.
Thank you for this report. As someone who lives within several miles of a refinery and rail lines, you’ve given me a lot to think about and prepare for. I need to remind younger family members that their vote in the 2024 election matters, especially if they care about the environment and have taken the EPA and railroad safety for granted.
Thanks as always for this excellent, thorough reporting. I will never stop being amazed at the lobbyists who claim that they should be exempt because regulations hurt profits and cause administrative burdens. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that corporations have a right to inflict harm on communities.
Just heard about another hazardous materials leak on the news in the Bay Area (Northern California). Ominous and no longer surprising that these things are happening just as I'm reading your very informative article about the recent rise in occurances.
Speaking of the petrochemical companies, an activist group to which I belong, "Beyond Plastics" has drawn to my attention a scientist who is promoting plastics as "green". Here is a link to a summary of his book: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cont-ed-62/olli/22-winter/plastics.pdf. It's offensive that he states environmentalists are getting their information from the web and spreading misinformation. He neglects the health risks of plastic in everything we eat, drink and breathe. His premise is "yes plastic is wasteful but so is everything". He overwhelms readers with "facts" since he is an expert. I do presentations and I like to keep abreast of climate information, which is why I value HEATED. I am trying to research his "peer reviewed data" myself. However, a respected journalist like Emily might be interested in taking up this cause. I don't think he deserves a counter argument of every point but if there is scientific research debunking just one of his talking points, it would be extremely helpful to those of us who do our best to educate our community on the need to take our climate crisis seriously. It would be much appreciated if you, Emily Atkin, or others could consider looking into this source. Thanks in advance.
I read through the expose on his book and I have seen similar before. The two most talked about areas to focus on that has the highest impact on our lives that is turning out to be an argument about myth or fact is the ingress of plastics and trace chemicals in our food and the oceans.. The other hard to believe was the impact of paper bags versus plastic bags.. still thinking about that one.
I do agree with him that in the main the media and some so called scientific environmentalist blow things way out of proportion and eventually will loose credibility.
I also do agree that governments pull the trigger on legislation by listening to the activist rhetoric rather than the scientific facts which is also a problem on many items associated with climate and pollution.
My view is that we need to eliminate waste in all forms by changing our life cycle USE of materials much more than the choice of material.
I am old enough to remember a world without plastics and its certainly been a benefit and we must ensure we are correct if we push back on the use of something so central to our improvement in living standard. We just need to stop buying stuff and then throwing it away!
This is a good article and a focus on pollution is always worthwhile whatever the source.
Look we all including industry can always do better…but according to the EPA and other controlling bodies of which there are many in USMCA, per capita and per GDP we so far do not have a significant spike in incidents and accidents although its always an ongoing regulatory and operational goal to reduce the numbers and associated costs and impact on the environment.
We do see now some significant reshoring of industry as we undertake deglobalization and this statistically may skew future numbers, but if we measure correctly we should hope to see no real trend although incidents will occur in a system of industrial activity with so many nodes and pathways to make the essential products from raw material with safety and environmental hazard profiles. The media must do a better job of framing the situation and avoiding unfair sensationalism or they will loose the attention from the general public and industry as a whole.
Last time I checked far more people die and get hurt on the road and domestic violence and self induced drug use than from industrial accidents…. but I have not checked that data recently.
Outside the USMCA and the EU it’s a far worse situation on all measures and its safe to say we do have in the west enough controls and standards to meet in place. Also financial and judicial penalties and legislations on the generation of accidents and industrial waste in all forms is increasing which is good.
We had not included natural trace gases such as CO2 and methane as pollution although new legislation is attempting to drive that, although this is being reviewed, and is a separate discussion.
We need to separate the uses of fossil resources into two categories…. energy and materials.
For that used for energy sources (electricity and heating gases) this can eventually be reduced with alternative technologies with the best being nuclear and where possible hydro … forget wind and solar it’s the wrong direction and many articles about that. Hydrogen may have a role but it’s a long way off.. and we are going to be using fossil fuels for transportation for many more years as EVs are also a huge mistake as the environmental footprint will be far worse than existing albeit cleaned up fossil fuels.
Its also clear that NetZero is not going to happen as its clear it will impinge on prosperity and many recent news articles and here is a new article on that outlook.
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/a-political-new-year-s-resolution-on-climate-change
Regarding the other use of fossil resources, to provide materials for our modern civilization, we must realize just how much we are married to fossil materials.
Although we may be able to reduce the burning of fossil fuels to power our transportation and heat our facilities, we will always need fossil fuel materials to “make things”. The biproducts of fossil fuels are essential for our modern lifestyle, such as transportation equipment, industrial equipment, pharmaceuticals, computers, buildings, furnishings, clothes, shoes, etc., etc.
A world without fossil-fuels and the associated bi products will put us back into the mid 19th century and will mean cutting down many trees for fuel, and the hunting and killing of animals for skins and other materials and will mean hardship for many. Contemplating a world without such materials is far from realistic or viable!
The best solution is
Stop NetZero and focus on climate adaption in a naturally warming planet.
Continue to clean up the use of fossil fuels in balance with prosperity.
Focus on the reduction on the USE of these resources… as conservation is a far better approach.
It will mean ….Stop throwing things away and make them last longer…. This is a huge culture shift and even just recycling is not the best solution and worst case it goes to landfill.
Reduce wasteful packaging in all forms and disposable products. Repair rather than replace. Perform better maintenance than a tear down. Improve the efficiency of all activities with LEAN practices.
This will mean retraining consumers and our providing industries.
We are over producing and over consuming for no reason
We have become a throw away world and super consumer’s and this has to stop.
Many articles on this form of cultural sustainability.
Respectfully disagree. We need to do both, eliminate the use of fossil fuels and speed up the transition to a circular economy. EV's are a step in the right direction and there will be a market for recycling batteries when batteries reach the end of their practical life.
Sorry…. but just about everything you say is more wishful thinking than true scientific and economic reality.
Eliminating fossil fuels without anything in place that is viable to replace them with is foolish… and W&S and EVs are never going to help other than lower prosperity.
NetZero is both unnecessary and foolish, especially when its only being embraced by the western nations with the rest ramping up the use of FFs.
Plus, a focus on CO2 as a pollutant is not based on climate science and sound policy once you strip away the subjugating politics, and this will become very clear in the near future.
Suggest you read.. A Political New-Year’s Resolution On Climate Change (brainzmagazine.com)
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/a-political-new-year-s-resolution-on-climate-change
We need to look at overall economic sustainability not just the narrow viewpoint of the circular economy.
Have you any idea what we are going to do with a world with a huge battery lifecycle problem at the supply chain scale needed to 100% implement NetZero?... the pollution from the materials extraction will dwarf any we have seen with fossil fuels.
I know you mean well and we all have an advocating spirit ….. but let’s stay with reality on such an important process or we will do more harm than good...
There you go again, Nigel. First you start with your concern about pollution and then slip in how fossil fuels and greenhouse gases are really just fine, just a few little trace gases with nothing to worry about. And when provided with several outside-the-IPCC authoritative analyses of fossil fuels generated greenhouse gases and the physics of those emissions in the oceans and atmosphere, you completely ignore the real dangers they present. And you provide no alternative physics that can make their increasing presence benign. Not to worry, Nigel. I am happy to provide you that list of studies that you've ignored and must explain in order to show how benign they are. It's an ever growing stream of data coming from all directions, so don't wait too long to ask for them again or you'll be buried.
I also find it fascinating to see you how have bent the conversation about pollutants to your favorite topic as all roads lead to your critique of NetZero, right? NetZero is an evil concept that is unnecessary if fossil fuel use is benign, right?
Nobody is saying that NetZero is an easy thing to accomplish. In fact here is a very good article that examines the very real challenges presented by NetZero. https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2207727120 The difference between your and their analysis is that they see the need to take that challenge on because of the increasing hazards of what happens if we don't take it on. They are part of the solution and you are part of the problem, Nigel.
Ken I do enjoy our little chats....
What problem am I part of?... not agreeing with you?.. get over it.
I wanted to add value to the important issue of pollution and how to approach it, but I had to explain that CO2 is not a pollutant if I was going to talk about pollution.
Listen matey … I am not interested in sharing and wrestling with you with climate data… After reviewing both sides of the argument my conclusion has been well documented…. I don’t buy the politically driven IPCC groupthink that is based on climate models that are overstated and keep getting proved wrong.
We have no adverse climate trends that should concern us!
No one has tied CO2 to climate change without using unsubstantiated theories.
In summary… yes the climate is changing… its natural… and its mostly not us!
We now have enough scientists who I respect and have published who have declared no climate emergency and others that explain the non viability of NetZero under any circumstance.
So its clear the science is not settled and as the NetZero policies are dire and unrealistic we need further review before we prostrate our economies for no reason by activating such policies.
We have a significant level of growing doubt that we should follow such a NetZero journey with many articles and documentary on the subject.
I am not the problem… I am not trying to win ..I want truth and the best decision for all…religious groupthink wont work.
Also…
The good news!!
It’s clear that many Western governments are now experiencing a political shift in thinking on the reality and risks of following a NetZero policy, and we predict new political resolutions on the approach to climate change in the new year and beyond.
More at..
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/a-political-new-year-s-resolution-on-climate-change
Get over you not agreeing with me? That's not even on the table for me, Nigel. The issue is not whether CO2 is a pollutant, either. Water is beneficial and essential for life, right? That doesn't mean that you can't drown in too much of it, or die of thirst, for that matter.
And the fact of the matter is that it's not a matter of wanting to or not wanting to "wrestle climate data." You can't get away with saying that the well studied physics of greenhouse gases is wrong, and say that not only is the physics incorrect, but completely fail to provide an alternative physical mechanism that explains all of that climate data more accurately. Without a testable model, you can't call it science, Nigel, and all of the alternative mechanisms that supposedly explain the data in the websites you have provided have been thoroughly discredited as inadequate, and you know it. So whether you like it or not, your sources are obligated to explain the data with testable models that perform better than the greenhouse gas models that get better and better by the day. In fact here is the latest, published (outside the IPCC, by the way in Nature) this month: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49353-1
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but until you provide a viable testable mechanism for the changing climate that does not have as its driving source the emissions from fossil fuels, nothing you say sticks. There is no beef, as they say.
Ok.. I did look through the article from nature that in the past has been very selective in its publications to ensure the climate crisis narrative and exclude anything else… but I held my nose and took a look.
The summary says …
“Global heating of the Earth system is unequivocal. The long-term acceleration of Earth warming aligns qualitatively with the rise in CO2 concentrations and the decline in aerosol concentration during the same period, but further investigations are necessary to properly attribute these changes.”
No argument …the planet is naturally warming and its mostly good news..
They say CO2 is increasing as it will as the warmer oceans will release more CO2
The scientists I have talked with say about 75% of the CO2 increase is natural and our contribution may be 25% and as CO2 saturates such that doubling is worth 1 deg C its hard to worry.
They go on to say that “further investigations are necessary to properly attribute these changes.”
This is because although there is correlation at present between CO2 and temperature that’s not always been the case in the past and a clear causation has not be proven..
Here is my main point …
Its clear that we do not have scientific closure within the scientific community with many disconnects so we should not be undertaking such a prosperity killer as NetZero without a much more facilitated scientific review…
Its not the job of the climate realists to prove to the UN IPCC that they are wrong it’s the job of the IPCC to prove they are right… they try to do this with failed models and a huge gap between the policy section and the scientific section in their reports plus a lot of wishful thinking agendas. So. its high time we put all involved in the same room before I would vote to put our citizens through this NetZero mess.
The good news is that this review is going to happen as its clear that many Western governments are now experiencing a political shift in thinking on the reality and risks of following a NetZero policy, and we predict new political resolutions on the approach to climate change in the new year and beyond.…
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/a-political-new-year-s-resolution-on-climate-change
I am far from alone in this position.. I do respect yours, but I have seen much more religion than the thirst for scientific truth, and we need a much more risk management approach much more than what I have seen by many.
History has seen scientists in group think mode get it badly wrong and it took minority dissention to correct… examples. earth was flat… sun went round the earth … flight was impossible.. etc. Trump in the white house.. sorry about that last one 😊
BTW happy 2024
You misquote me. I never said "without anything in place". You are also quite condescending. Net zero is essential and an extractive economy which is what fossil fuels are is what is non sustaining.
Did not mean to dis you...... but wanted to correct what you said... and what I meant is that we have no technology or budget to do NetZero in any time frame and certainly not across the globe. And its not essential in fact its unnecessary.
If you want an extractive economy try W&S and EVs.. they are far more extractive and dirty than the future with Fossil fuels…. Especially when you buy them from suppliers using coal to make these products.
There are future solutions… but they need to be economically viable or no dice.
The plastics created by plants, animals and fungi are food for something else living. So the idea of durable, fixable, reusable, recyclable items with low waste is better, but there will be leakage from this human cradle to cradle system, once we create it. So whatever substances that we use MUST not only be basically benign, but also biodegradable, and also fit into existing ecosystems. Then we can use them more abundantly and even profligately, because "Waste=Food." A great little documentary, btw, imho better than the book "Cradle to Cradle," written by one of the documentary's stars.
Strictly speaking, ammonia is not a petrochemical as it has no carbon in it. It's mostly produced by the Haber process which involves the catalytic reduction of nitrogen by hydrogen. This process is widely used in the production of fertilizer. The hydrogen is often obtained by "reforming' of methane to give CO2 and hydrogen, though hydrogen can also be produced in a variety of other ways. I wouldn't refer to hydrogen as a "petrochemical" either. There is a lot of interest in hydrogen these days since combustion of hydrogen can produce the high temperatures needed for certain industrial processes like steel production. Hydrogen now comes in various "colors." Grey hydrogen is produced by reforming without capturing the CO2. Blue hydrogen is produced by reforming with capture of the CO2. Green hydrogen comes from electrolysis with electricity generated by renewable technology. Pink hydrogen is produced by electrolysis using electricity generated by nuclear power. Lastly, white hydrogen comes from geological sources, either naturally produced or by injecting hot water into geological formations. Legislation passed by the Biden administration is pushing hydrogen energy very hard with insufficient concerns over the method of generation.
Some really cool research is happening in producing petrochemicals using CO2 as a source, so thank you for highlighting that
My favourite is when people try to tell me how bad solar panels are for the planet and I just point to any one of these disasters.
Have you seen pictures of the mining operations to extract the materials for batteries and other materials to feed the massive use of W&S… Its probably 1000 times worse than a fossil fuel driven world. Then you will need a candle to view these pictures at night and when the wind don’t blow… And just hope the lights stay on in the hospital when you get poisoned by your water source when the same toxic material leeches out into the water supply. O and also make sure you budget the use of FFs to make the W&S and batteries .. probably from coal in China.. go figure!
Mr Hyperbole, try to read this instead: https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2023/12/xchange_batteries_the_battery_domino_effect.pdf
The experts are divided on this outcome... I would rather invest our energies on many more important things..... such as reshoring our manufacturing and improving our prosperity and our overall sustainability.... I work with viable plans not dreams.
Did you even read the article?
Seen it before… I help source batteries for some of my clients engineering projects.. and many applications will benifit and glad its improving.
Look batteries and better batteries have their place but not for traction.
They say….supply chain Barriers are soluble. Although supply chains are stressed, thanks to constant innovation and in vestment, we have enough raw materials that can be sourced — equitably and sustainably — and can act fast enough to build the charging infrastructure required for the future battery-dominated energy system…. This is wishful thinking nonsense.... on supply chains watch .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrNdJAZ75h4
The cost of providing charging stations is a net cost to the population. I would rather build more affordable houses and our decaying infrastructure than a charging station.
They Say…A reinforcing feedback loop of scale, cost, and quality. As the battery market grows, unit cost keeps falling and quality keeps rising. Both battery cost and energy density are on learning curves: for every doubling of battery production, costs fall by 19%-29% and the density of leading batteries rises by 7%-18%. At this rate, by 2030, battery cell costs will fall to $32-54 per kWh and top-tier batteries will have an energy density of 600-800 Wh/kg.
This is still almost 400 times worse than gasoline or diesel..
It is true that all technology does make improvements and the integrated circuit is a good example… think Moores law.. even it has a scientific limit due to thermal dynamics…
Look…science is not kind to batteries.. they convert inefficiently and store far less energy at considerable more weight and the charging infrastructure and safety is still of high concern and cost..
energy dencity of gasoline - Yahoo Canada Image Search Results
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#/media/File:Energy_density.svg
Its far from a replacement for fossil fuels…. Especially for many industrial applications..
That’s why EVs are a huge waste.
why not read this and then we can talk..
https://www.brainzmagazine.com/post/take-back-manufacturing-climate-realism
You need to stop compartmentalizing your analyses so narrowly: it's called externalizing the costs. Take for instance your claim about how much worse battery production is on the environment compared to internal combustion transportation. The mining and processing of car batteries for EVs is much more energy-intensive than the manufacturing of gas-powered vehicles. However, the total emissions produced by electric vehicles during their lifetime is significantly less than gas-powered cars. In other words, you are externalizing the costs, emissions and pollution throughout the lifetime of your internal combustion car compared to the much more efficient (80%) transfer of energy in the drive train compared to internal combustion (20%) over the lifetime of the vehicle, to say nothing about the much simpler construction of BEVs and related repairs, etc. And the cool thing is that W&S produced more energy than coal for the past few months! https://cleantechnica.com/2024/01/01/wind-solar-power-provide-more-electricity-than-coal-in-usa/
And, oh yes. Fossil fuels emit greenhouse gases and are changing the earth's oceans and atmospheric chemistry. Something you still deny in order to write it out of the equation. Since your braiinz article falls short on so many of these fronts, it's difficult to take it seriously. Remove those issues, and I'm happy to discuss.
Thank you for this report. As someone who lives within several miles of a refinery and rail lines, you’ve given me a lot to think about and prepare for. I need to remind younger family members that their vote in the 2024 election matters, especially if they care about the environment and have taken the EPA and railroad safety for granted.
Thanks as always for this excellent, thorough reporting. I will never stop being amazed at the lobbyists who claim that they should be exempt because regulations hurt profits and cause administrative burdens. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that corporations have a right to inflict harm on communities.
Just heard about another hazardous materials leak on the news in the Bay Area (Northern California). Ominous and no longer surprising that these things are happening just as I'm reading your very informative article about the recent rise in occurances.