Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438044

Postby Sorcery » August 28th, 2021, 2:31 pm

This has been bugging me for a while. I am not sure this is 100% right which is why this is being posted, to attract criticism or agreement.

The BBC do not allow climate debate because it's so unreasonable to suggest that there are alternative viewpoints even though climate scientists themselves disagree with each other!

Wind is unreliable in the UK as shown by https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk at the moment.
Solar very reliably fails at night or in cloudy weather and in winter.

No time to build nuclear plant. Fusion not close.

So if we have to abandon fossil fuels, then blackouts are likely.
Electricity with blackouts leads to industry and the country going broke.

It would be utterly crazy for a sane government to propose or enact policy that led to blackouts. My guess is that we are going to have to continue to use fossil fuels until technology can save us.

The idea that we can replace all fuel use in the UK for heating and transport with new energy from the electricity grid is unrealistic. The electricity grid is going to have a hard enough time staying up without blackouts unless it also uses fossil fuels.

This is not to say that some countries with Geothermal energy (like Iceland), or lots of hydro (like Norway) might be able to avoid fossil fuels. It's perhaps more likely that we could offset with forestry, or directly take the C02 from the atmosphere artificially. Even easier if we accept that carbonates removed from the sea also count as offsetting. It's what happens anyway, the sea naturally (via snails and the like) produce insoluble carbonates from seawater. Carbonate production can be speeded up by application of DC electricity to seawater https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 1820330294

Then I noticed this today (good until Monday when US markets open) :
https://markets.businessinsider.com/ind ... rs/s&p_500
Biggest risers are almost all oil & gas companies. Oil price was up around 1% Friday so that's not a total explanation, perhaps the US markets are waking up to the realities of going green and that gas will likely have a future.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4815
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438054

Postby scrumpyjack » August 28th, 2021, 3:13 pm

I read somewhere there are plans to use 750 ton flywheels to store wind/solar power so as to provide energy when wind / sun is absent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

It should be fun when the bearings fail! Just hope they are aimed in the direction of the sea, not London.

tacpot12
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 136
Joined: July 19th, 2018, 10:24 am
Has thanked: 142 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438077

Postby tacpot12 » August 28th, 2021, 4:58 pm

I'm not aware of the BBC having decided that it will not allow climate debate, but realisitically all scientists now agree that the climate is changing and it is doing so faster because of human activity. There is not much left to debate apart from perhaps the rate of temperature rise and the degree to which human activity is accelerating the changes that happen naturally. You could debate the likelihood of certain effects of the temperature rise, e.g. will it alter the path of the Jetstream? But there are some effects that most scientists agree will occur, such as the rise in sea levels.

Given that buring fossil fuels and biomass creates pollution, destroys natural habitats and is adding to climate change, I would prefer that we didn't do it.

That leads to the question as to whether our grid can cope if we stop burning fossil fuels? At present, I fear not. The grid has very limited storage, but this is something that can be fixed via a combination of centralised and distributed storage. With much greater storage capacity, the grid could work without fossil fuels, but using more biomass/bio-fuels.

Certain forms of transport, such as aircraft, ships and trains in certain countries, really need the energy density of fossil fuels. There are viable replacements for fossil fuels using bio-fuels, and all the infrastructure is in place to deliver such fuels. I think we should accept that certain are going to require the buring of such fuels to a long time into the future, and therefore we should switch as much transportation to non-polluting forms of power to limit the effect of the burning of bio-fuels.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438112

Postby XFool » August 28th, 2021, 7:50 pm

Sorcery wrote:This has been bugging me for a while. I am not sure this is 100% right which is why this is being posted, to attract criticism or agreement.

The BBC do not allow climate debate because it's so unreasonable to suggest that there are alternative viewpoints even though climate scientists themselves disagree with each other!

Well, you did ask for "criticism". :)

Honestly, I'm far from sure what you mean. "The BBC do not allow climate debate" - In comments, in programmes? Debate about what? The reality of climate change? The causes of climate change? The consequences of climate change? The ways of addressing climate change?

I guess it's also true the BBC "doesn't allow debate" about Intelligent Design vs Darwinian Evolution, about a Solar centric vs Geocentric solar system, about Germ Theory vs who knows what? Ought it to?

There are always "alternative viewpoints", but how many of them make any sense whatsoever?

"though climate scientists themselves disagree with each other!" - Disagree about what, exactly? Evolutionary scientists disagree with each other about lots of things! Apart from evolution...

Sorcery wrote:Wind is unreliable in the UK as shown by https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk at the moment.
Solar very reliably fails at night or in cloudy weather and in winter.

No time to build nuclear plant. Fusion not close.

So if we have to abandon fossil fuels, then blackouts are likely.
Electricity with blackouts leads to industry and the country going broke.

It would be utterly crazy for a sane government to propose or enact policy that led to blackouts.

Yeah. Which is probably why nobody serious is proposing doing this, so why bother about it? (There is a valid point about energy storage)

Sorcery wrote:My guess is that we are going to have to continue to use fossil fuels until technology can save us.

In other words it's a transition, not a Blitzkreig?

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438117

Postby XFool » August 28th, 2021, 8:28 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:I read somewhere there are plans to use 750 ton flywheels to store wind/solar power so as to provide energy when wind / sun is absent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

It should be fun when the bearings fail! Just hope they are aimed in the direction of the sea, not London.

Alternatively:

39 Ways to Save the Planet

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000z1k0

Big Drop Energy

A big weight and a very, very deep hole. The team behind Gravitricity think they have found a solution to a serious problem with renewable energy.

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438118

Postby Sorcery » August 28th, 2021, 8:29 pm

That leads to the question as to whether our grid can cope if we stop burning fossil fuels? At present, I fear not. The grid has very limited storage, but this is something that can be fixed via a combination of centralised and distributed storage. With much greater storage capacity, the grid could work without fossil fuels, but using more biomass/bio-fuels
.

Perhaps we need to size the problem first. Gridwatch is useful for this. At the moment gridwatch says the UK is producing 3.29gw from wind, yet we are using 11.37gw of CCGT (gas), so roughly we need 3.45 times as much more energy from wind. Doable yes, but wind is unreliable, gas is not. How do we avoid fossil fuel use when we have no wind, to avoid blackouts (and potentially hypothermia deaths in winter)? I have seen this situation before in winter a few years back when we had a similar blocking high but in January. Similar but worse, there was virtually no wind. Imho there is no scenario where we could live with wind without fossil fuel backup.
As for storage let's look at the storage requirements, we need the storage to carry us for a period of at least a week of no-wind. That would be 11.37gw *7 * 24 = 1910gwh of storage. Flywheels, hydrogen (whether blue or green) is not going to scratch the surface of the problem. A screw-up is going to cost lives and make the government of the day un-electable. It's also going to be very expensive to convert all gas pipes to use hydrogen, need to replace any metal pipes in the gas grid and houses (to avoid hydrogen embrittlement) to polyethylene.
These numbers are of course before we move to abolish fossil fuel use for transport and heating.

If I were government, I would prefer to wait for fusion or something else and tell Extinction Rebellion their policies can go to hell.

I was looking at the telegraph today and yesterday and saw this article from Ambrose Pritchard Evans https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... tage-blue/

I disagree with the article, but in the comments there was this, a video from a Dutchman entitled "The impossibility of windmills", worth a watch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7PHUMd7PYA
Comments worth a read for both articles.

Sorcery
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1229
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:38 pm
Has thanked: 147 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438215

Postby Sorcery » August 29th, 2021, 3:15 pm

joey wrote:I agree that mainstream media — BBC included — has little if any useful debate on this topic; the topic being, what are the possible solutions for solving the problem, rather than if a problem exists (it seems to me that a change of climate is indeed happening, and it is predominately happening due to carbon fuels, and its impact is potentially devastating). We shouldn’t be surprised this is the case. Most media is pretty piss poor at actually analysing situations, or contributing useful analysis of events, etc. There is nothing unique about the change of climate in that respect.


There are some climate scientists around who are a little more guarded. While they agree that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, some suggest that because the 1930s were so hot which is prior to the huge changes in industrialisation and population growth since, that there is also a natural part to increasing temperatures perhaps 50%. There is an argument that we are rebounding from the little ice-age towards a climate more like the medieval warm period, at least in part naturally.

What worries me is that government is promising net zero by 2050 without the technology available and demanding that electricity while having to do without fossil fuels for generation, we can't use fossil fuels anywhere else (bar plastics I guess), for transport and heating putting even more of a burden on the grid.
So for a goal that's not achievable for the UK from renewables, we will have blackouts and people dying of hypothermia. The politicians are so stupid you just know that they will make more promises they can't keep at the upcoming Glasgow climate change conference.

A lot of people make the assumption that climate science is a science like physics. It's not, for a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations they estimate that we will get a 1.5deg C to 4.5deg C change. Not very precise unlike constants from physics.

Oh bother, i am beginning to sound as despairing as Greta for the opposite reasons.

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 916
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 679 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438223

Postby NotSure » August 29th, 2021, 4:30 pm

Sorcery wrote:As for storage let's look at the storage requirements, we need the storage to carry us for a period of at least a week of no-wind. That would be 11.37gw *7 * 24 = 1910gwh of storage.


That equates to about 20,000,000 fully charged electric car batteries - one per household, very roughly.

Not suggesting this as a complete solution (and I’m sure it has already been discussed), but if we do go electric, transport wise, and priced electricity based on availability, then it has to help. That is, if it is windy in the middle of the night, basically give the electricity away to be sold back at a premium (or simply used) when there is no excess.

I just cannot see how centralised energy storage at anything like the level required is going to happen, but massively distributed storage may help considerably, and come about naturally to some extent as cars switch to electric and battery-backed small-wind/small-solar become cheap/subsidised.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4815
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438224

Postby scrumpyjack » August 29th, 2021, 4:45 pm

joey wrote:I agree that mainstream media — BBC included — has little if any useful debate on this topic; the topic being, what are the possible solutions for solving the problem, rather than if a problem exists (it seems to me that a change of climate is indeed happening, and it is predominately happening due to carbon fuels, and its impact is potentially devastating). We shouldn’t be surprised this is the case. Most media is pretty piss poor at actually analysing situations, or contributing useful analysis of events, etc. There is nothing unique about the change of climate in that respect.

Beyond that, I don’t have much to say, other than that I have faith that the entrepreneurial way will produce a solution to the issue, and that the leftists, who crop up in a new form every so often — this time around as XR — will offer nothing much beyond hot air and a mis-placed sense of success once the aforementioned entrepreneurs actually solve the problem.


I agree that we cannot be absolutely certain how much of climate change is due to increased CO2 levels and how much is natural changes in climate. In the age of the dinosaurs I think the average world temperature was about 36c, much much hotter than now. However if there is any significant chance that the climate change consensus is correct, we have to act accordingly because the result of not acting would be so catastrophic. But there should be far greater emphasis on action elsewhere on the planet, particularly China and India, not to mention Germany burning vast quantities of coal still. Anything we do in this country will be so trivial on a global scale but along with pushing for lower CO2 here we should put much more pressure on other countries. How about a carbon tax on imported German products to reflect their coal burning?

Lanark
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 27th, 2017, 11:41 am
Has thanked: 595 times
Been thanked: 582 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438228

Postby Lanark » August 29th, 2021, 4:55 pm

There are two sides to the climate debate:

1) Admitting that climate change is real and something needs to be done.
2) Figuring out what the best solution is and implementing it.

Scientists had figured out 1) back in the 1970s, but it has taken 40 years for the majority of politicians to admit they might be right.
If it takes another 40 years for 2) to happen, taking us to 2060, that's going to be too late.

So flooding and other extreme weather events it is then.

I'm expecting the people who were so put out by a few Polish plumbers are going to be delighted when large parts of India and the entirety of Bangladesh arrive in a flotilla of small boats!

The thing that is going to make the transition difficult is that the capitalist system is built upon an expectation of constant growth. Getting that system to reward the lowering of consumption is difficult. In particular all aspects of the tax system tend to reward those who consume the most resources.

tjh290633
Lemon Half
Posts: 8209
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 913 times
Been thanked: 4097 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438242

Postby tjh290633 » August 29th, 2021, 6:32 pm

Lanark wrote:There are two sides to the climate debate:

1) Admitting that climate change is real and something needs to be done.
2) Figuring out what the best solution is and implementing it.

Scientists had figured out 1) back in the 1970s, but it has taken 40 years for the majority of politicians to admit they might be right.

Back in the 1970s, the concern was about global cooling and the onset of peak oil.

I spent some time looking at ways in which coal could be used in industrial processes.

Concern with Global warming, renamed to Climate Change because there was less than the IPCC's hockey stick and Al Gore were predicting, really only began towards the end of the last century.

The climate does change, but there are forces more powerful than carbon dixide which affect it.

TJH

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 916
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 679 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438246

Postby NotSure » August 29th, 2021, 6:52 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:.... But there should be far greater emphasis on action elsewhere on the planet, particularly China and India...


I take your point, but if say USA could reduce its per capita emission to match China (even ignoring the amount of emissions they 'outsource' to China), or better still, all devloped economies could get down to anywhere near to the per capita emission of India, we probably wouldn't need to have this thread. I don't think it realistic to expect developing economies to live with lower per capita emissions than the West (much lower in India's case), while simultaneoulsy manufacturing many of our goods and shipping them here.

PhaseThree

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438247

Postby PhaseThree » August 29th, 2021, 6:58 pm

A considered and balanced report on climate change :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

Lanark
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1321
Joined: March 27th, 2017, 11:41 am
Has thanked: 595 times
Been thanked: 582 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438250

Postby Lanark » August 29th, 2021, 7:15 pm

tjh290633 wrote:
Lanark wrote:There are two sides to the climate debate:

1) Admitting that climate change is real and something needs to be done.
2) Figuring out what the best solution is and implementing it.

Scientists had figured out 1) back in the 1970s, but it has taken 40 years for the majority of politicians to admit they might be right.

Back in the 1970s, the concern was about global cooling and the onset of peak oil.

I spent some time looking at ways in which coal could be used in industrial processes.

Concern with Global warming, renamed to Climate Change because there was less than the IPCC's hockey stick and Al Gore were predicting, really only began towards the end of the last century.

The climate does change, but there are forces more powerful than carbon dixide which affect it.

TJH


"So, what did 1970’s Climate Science Actually Say?

Despite the majority of studies projecting warming, one common myth today misrepresents climate science in the 1970s by saying that the general understanding was of an imminent ice age. The small fraction of studies predicting cooling received a lot of media attention in the 1970s. The idea of a forthcoming ice age made for great headlines. The effect of this disproportionate media coverage persists today, as some people and organizations continue to perpetuate the idea that an ice age was predicted in the 1970s."
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-pr ... ediate.htm

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438255

Postby Lootman » August 29th, 2021, 7:38 pm

NotSure wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:.... But there should be far greater emphasis on action elsewhere on the planet, particularly China and India...

I take your point, but if say USA could reduce its per capita emission to match China (even ignoring the amount of emissions they 'outsource' to China), or better still, all devloped economies could get down to anywhere near to the per capita emission of India, we probably wouldn't need to have this thread. I don't think it realistic to expect developing economies to live with lower per capita emissions than the West (much lower in India's case), while simultaneoulsy manufacturing many of our goods and shipping them here.

But in terms of the overall effect of these emissions, it is not the per capita numbers that matter. If Fiji or the Faroe Islands have high per capita emissions, so what? The impact is trivial. It is China and India with 2.7 billion people between them that are the problem.

OK, the US is number 3 in terms of population. But after that it is Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia and Mexico. Europe isn't the problem. It is the developing countries.

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 916
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 679 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438264

Postby NotSure » August 29th, 2021, 8:11 pm

Lootman wrote:
But in terms of the overall effect of these emissions, it is not the per capita numbers that matter. If Fiji or the Faroe Islands have high per capita emissions, so what? The impact is trivial. It is China and India with 2.7 billion people between them that are the problem.

OK, the US is number 3 in terms of population. But after that it is Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia and Mexico. Europe isn't the problem. It is the developing countries.


So, all other things being even, if China decided to devolve into 100 seperate administrations, they'd be off the hook? And if Europe truly did merge, then it would become the bogeyman?

Quality of life is still linked to energy access, which for now largely means carbon. I just do not see how whether you live in a small or a large country should affect your right to consume and raise your standard of living (or vice versa). That's just a fairly abitrary consequence of largely ancient history. Be a good driver to break up the UK, though I guess - Scotland in particular could then really ramp up its emisions, yet not be a problem to global climate as there are so few of them.

The above proobably sounds sarky without body language, but I just do not see how one's 'guilt-free' level of carbon footprint should simply be down to the population of the country you were born in. If we all consumed the same amount of carbon as the average Indian, we'd not have a problem.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438266

Postby Lootman » August 29th, 2021, 8:21 pm

NotSure wrote:
Lootman wrote: But in terms of the overall effect of these emissions, it is not the per capita numbers that matter. If Fiji or the Faroe Islands have high per capita emissions, so what? The impact is trivial. It is China and India with 2.7 billion people between them that are the problem.

OK, the US is number 3 in terms of population. But after that it is Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Brazil, Bangladesh, Russia and Mexico. Europe isn't the problem. It is the developing countries.

So, all other things being even, if China decided to devolve into 100 seperate administrations, they'd be off the hook? And if Europe truly did merge, then it would become the bogeyman?

Quality of life is still linked to energy access, which for now largely means carbon. I just do not see how whether you live in a small or a large country should affect your right to consume and raise your standard of living (or vice versa). That's just a fairly arbitrary consequence of largely ancient history. Be a good driver to break up the UK, though I guess - Scotland in particular could then really ramp up its emissions, yet not be a problem to global climate as there are so few of them.

The above probably sounds sarky without body language, but I just do not see how one's 'guilt-free' level of carbon footprint should simply be down to the population of the country you were born in. If we all consumed the same amount of carbon as the average Indian, we'd not have a problem.

I was responding to a post that claimed that it is the per capita emissions that are the problem. I disagree. It is the totality of emissions that matters and inevitably that relates to population. So what China and India do to reduce emissions has far more effect than what Scotland does.

You and I may feel noble about taking a bus rather than driving, or turning down our thermostats by a degree or two. But if China, India, Indonesia etc, insist on developing a Western level of consumption and lifestyle, then the planet is probably doomed regardless.

Of course if the real solution is for people like me to drop my living standards to those of India, then I am not playing and will take my chances with global warming. My London house is 50 metres above sea level and I figure it may even go up in value if the sea level rises and floods out all those new homes with Thames views.

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 916
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 679 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438270

Postby NotSure » August 29th, 2021, 8:37 pm

Lootman wrote:You and I may feel noble about taking a bus rather than driving, or turning down our thermostats by a degree or two. But if China, India, Indonesia etc, insist on developing a Western level of consumption and lifestyle, then the planet is probably doomed regardless.

Of course if the real solution is for people like me to drop my living standards to those of India, then I am not playing and will take my chances with global warming. My London house is 50 metres above sea level and I figure it may even go up in value if the sea level rises and floods out all those new homes with Thames views.


I think we are basically on the same page!

"We" (Westerners) are effectively trying to insist that India et al remain in the dark ages so we can continue to live large. I can just see why, if I were an Indian, I would maybe beg to differ.

As such, I can only think "we" may have to try to to meet a bit nearer the middle. Otherwise I can so no way that the developing world is going to choose to arrest their development to help out those folk you mention with their nice views of the Thames.

I reside at about 250 m above sea level and enjoy warm weather, so what do I care ;)

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438275

Postby Lootman » August 29th, 2021, 8:48 pm

NotSure wrote:
Lootman wrote:You and I may feel noble about taking a bus rather than driving, or turning down our thermostats by a degree or two. But if China, India, Indonesia etc, insist on developing a Western level of consumption and lifestyle, then the planet is probably doomed regardless.

Of course if the real solution is for people like me to drop my living standards to those of India, then I am not playing and will take my chances with global warming. My London house is 50 metres above sea level and I figure it may even go up in value if the sea level rises and floods out all those new homes with Thames views.

I think we are basically on the same page!

"We" (Westerners) are effectively trying to insist that India et al remain in the dark ages so we can continue to live large. I can just see why, if I were an Indian, I would maybe beg to differ.

As such, I can only think "we" may have to try to to meet a bit nearer the middle. Otherwise I can so no way that the developing world is going to choose to arrest their development to help out those folk you mention with their nice views of the Thames.

I reside at about 250 m above sea level and enjoy warm weather, so what do I care ;)

I suspect that it is the people who live in cool climates who will gain from global warming. Canada will become more attractive whilst the southern states of the US will either flood (Florida, Louisiana) or become more like Death Valley (Arizona, Southern CA). Likewise Scotland might become a balmy paradise whilst Spain burns.

There will be winners and losers. In the end isn't it just another investment decision?

NotSure
Lemon Slice
Posts: 916
Joined: February 5th, 2021, 4:45 pm
Has thanked: 679 times
Been thanked: 314 times

Re: The pipe dream of net zero carbon emissions

#438284

Postby NotSure » August 29th, 2021, 9:03 pm

Lootman wrote:
There will be winners and losers. In the end isn't it just another investment decision?


I'm not quite as mercenary as yourself! The potential for literally billions of displaced humans and the utter misery that would ensue as we are all forced to fight it out over the remaining liveable regions of the planet raises this above a simple investment decsion for me. OK, I'm being dranatic here, but these sorts of things can genuinely snowball (positive feedback) and take everyone by surprise, especially when many/most (though not yourself) are basically in denial.

But each to their own! I'm not going to deny the elevation of my property was a factor in choosing it. Most propeties around where I live are much closer to sea level.


Return to “Oil & Gas & Energy (Sector & Companies)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests