I cannot post here what exactly I want the interaction to be between anyone involved in oil and a sharp stick so you're going to have to use your imagination. And yes, "anyone involved in oil" includes all governments, and a lot of businesses. Technically it even involves me because I have a job at a company that ships stuff.
It's not the planet that needs saving; Earth shall endure. Whether she endures with or without us is the known unknown. I never had children, but I live lightly on earth because it's the right thing to do.
“Humanity has finally done what is long, long, long overdue. […] Thirty years — 30 years! — we spent to arrive at the beginning of the end of fossil fuels.”
I probably am in the minority here, but this agreement is hardly stuff that merits a victory lap.
Did they finally manage to shut up that shithead from Dubai who kept saying "Yes, but there's no 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 evidence"?
One good consequence about the transition away from fossil fuels -- aside from, you know, the whole saving-the-planet thing -- is that that backward part of the world will no longer have an outsized influence in global politics.
Maybe they could come up with some sort of compromise, where maybe the richest oil producing countries have their vote enhance by some fraction of the oil wells they have, maybe 3/5 or so.
Even some of the oil producers are starting to get it. In THEORY, Mexico's state oil company PEMEX is supposed to be using the oil revenue to finance alternative energy development. Natually, the US is complaining that US businesses aren't given a "share" of the market given to the state electricial systems solar, wind, etc. business.
BTW, pretty cool. Our local markets here in Mexico City (we have those traditional markets in every neighborhood) are having solar panels installed on their roofs... considering how many markets there are, and how much space they occupy, the power generated is a sizable chunk of the overall grid.
By “1.5 C looks increasingly unlikely” I presume you meant there is no way we’re going to avoid blowing past the 1.5C target because there’s no effing way we don’t blow past 1.5C.
Maybe next time the chairman could be someone who is not literally financially involved in climate-heating technology? Someone less harmful to humans, like a cigarette salesman? Or an asbestos miner?
It’s a start, especially considering where “we” were coming from. This is no time to make perfect the enemy of good. Now to see how much time we actually have, we’ll, those of us not living on a small Pacific island.
Hear that progressive purity ponies? An imperfect (in your view) Biden versus a Trump who will burn it all to the fucking ground. That is the choice you are making by your actions.
The beast analogy I've heard lately is it's like riding the bus. You take it to the closest stop then walk the rest of way, you don't sit on the bench for years waiting for the bus company to change the route.
In this case the bus is ran by genocidal psychopaths and they're using the busline's income to increase the distance between the stop and your destination.
Truly, it is a hell of a task to get someone to admit to something when his livelihood depends on him never acknowledging it. A third of a loaf is better than no bread (but keep aiming for more bread).
I am cautiously going to say that COP agreeing on this is a BFD but from what I see, we all need to keep pressure on our local govt's to make the changes we need locally. The money is there (now at least) from the feds!
What is happening here (some funded by IRA) -
restriping roads from 2 lane to 1 lane + bike path
re-engineering interstate so it's easier for bikes + peds to cross safely
free busses forever!!
charging stations everywhere
gov't fleets EV or compressed NG (busses)
massive urban infill in the city center
We're tied with Florida for the most dangerous place in America for pedestrians. I'm hoping that local focus on improving non-car transit will improve that!!
The danger to pedestrians needs to become a bigger issue. We are in sync with the rest of the world in having auto fatalities decrease, but our pedestrian fatalities have skyrocketed compared with everyone else. The fact that light trucks get grills that are ever bigger, flatter ("more intimidating"), and more kid-crushing is not helping.
I really hope to live long enough to see cities reclaim real estate from cars and make it for people instead. I also hope to live long enough to see the death of the urban truck.
A number of drivers here ignore stop signs and assume that they can turn right at a red light without stopping or looking for cars, never mind pedestrians.
There was a crash near me last week when a car on a north-south street and one on an east-west street appeared to ignore the stop signs simultaneously.
>> CO2 remains the “worst” greenhouse gas since the amount of CO2 the world emits is far greater than any other<<
True. Methane traps heat 30 times more effectively than CO2 but remains in the air for years to a few decades, not centuries. This means that ultimately methane is only 3x as effective in net heat trapped since it is 30x as effective but over 1/10th the lifetime. Thus you need at least 3x the amount of CO2 to get the same warming as your amount of methane. But we have that. And more. So methane DIRECTLY contributes only one half to one fifth of the amount of warming as CO2 (I've seen wildly different numbers).
But worse, methane converts to CO2. It doesn't fall out of the atmosphere the way that CO2 is absorbed by the oceans or get metabolized by living things or weather into the rocks. Instead it becomes CO2 itself, meaning that WELL ACTUALLY the heat trapped by methane emissions isn't always fully calculated in some comparisons you see online (which makes it hard to compare different studies or reports unless they show you the math). Because for every methane molecule you emit, you're essentially committing to a delayed emission of one molecule of CO2.
Yes, CO2 is the biggest problem, but methane is not a small one. Fortunately for us the problem with methane is solved by the same steps as the problem with CO2: find ways to power things that don't involve burning stuff, and then the fossil fuel companies will bring less of that stuff (including less methane) up to the surface where it or its combustion products will inevitably escape into the atmosphere.
Yes. I was aware of that, but that dovetails with what I'm saying: the less industrial production of fossil fuels, the more the methane problem is reduced. So we have to stop burning fossil fuels if we want to reduce methane-caused warming. The exact mechanism by which methane emissions are reduced (direct or indirect, etc.) matters less than just knowing that our task is to find ways to power things without burning fossil fuels.
So the problem with methane really is caused by our need to power things through combustion and the eccentricities of the methane problem don't need to be addressed separately: regulations already require wells to be sealed when production is shut down.
I get it - I guess I just saw "power things" and really only thought of direct emissions from transportation, not overall, life-cycle emissions.
Still, this piece from 2020 ( charts updated to 2023 ) doesn't bother to include methane emissions from transportation - and the two largest contributors of methane are agriculture ( cow burps ) and what they call "fugitive emissions" ( which was what I was referring to without knowing the accepted term ).
I cannot post here what exactly I want the interaction to be between anyone involved in oil and a sharp stick so you're going to have to use your imagination. And yes, "anyone involved in oil" includes all governments, and a lot of businesses. Technically it even involves me because I have a job at a company that ships stuff.
It's not the planet that needs saving; Earth shall endure. Whether she endures with or without us is the known unknown. I never had children, but I live lightly on earth because it's the right thing to do.
I like the biosphere, could we try not to commit mass ecocide?
Two steps forward, one step back as always. Children of Kali, are you listening?
In this everyone is a child of Kali. You can't wait for others to step up.
Hush...no doxxing!@
“Humanity has finally done what is long, long, long overdue. […] Thirty years — 30 years! — we spent to arrive at the beginning of the end of fossil fuels.”
I probably am in the minority here, but this agreement is hardly stuff that merits a victory lap.
It's more like 60 yrs overdue. Flower children were protesting for ecology...
Geeze, when I was in Forestry School almost 50 years ago, this was a given.
Did they finally manage to shut up that shithead from Dubai who kept saying "Yes, but there's no 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 evidence"?
One good consequence about the transition away from fossil fuels -- aside from, you know, the whole saving-the-planet thing -- is that that backward part of the world will no longer have an outsized influence in global politics.
Maybe they could come up with some sort of compromise, where maybe the richest oil producing countries have their vote enhance by some fraction of the oil wells they have, maybe 3/5 or so.
Even some of the oil producers are starting to get it. In THEORY, Mexico's state oil company PEMEX is supposed to be using the oil revenue to finance alternative energy development. Natually, the US is complaining that US businesses aren't given a "share" of the market given to the state electricial systems solar, wind, etc. business.
BTW, pretty cool. Our local markets here in Mexico City (we have those traditional markets in every neighborhood) are having solar panels installed on their roofs... considering how many markets there are, and how much space they occupy, the power generated is a sizable chunk of the overall grid.
Nice times!
I suppose Baby steps are still steps.
By “1.5 C looks increasingly unlikely” I presume you meant there is no way we’re going to avoid blowing past the 1.5C target because there’s no effing way we don’t blow past 1.5C.
yup
The sooner we get off of oil the better. Not the least of which is we can finally ditch the likes of Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Way too little, 30 years too late
CCS?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqjITYuzdus
Maybe next time the chairman could be someone who is not literally financially involved in climate-heating technology? Someone less harmful to humans, like a cigarette salesman? Or an asbestos miner?
Or, you know, not in a petrostate?
It’s a start, especially considering where “we” were coming from. This is no time to make perfect the enemy of good. Now to see how much time we actually have, we’ll, those of us not living on a small Pacific island.
Hear that progressive purity ponies? An imperfect (in your view) Biden versus a Trump who will burn it all to the fucking ground. That is the choice you are making by your actions.
The beast analogy I've heard lately is it's like riding the bus. You take it to the closest stop then walk the rest of way, you don't sit on the bench for years waiting for the bus company to change the route.
In this case the bus is ran by genocidal psychopaths and they're using the busline's income to increase the distance between the stop and your destination.
Still better than walking 100 miles.
I disagree, because the bus is driving the wrong way.
So what's your idea?
We tried politics, we tried cultural change, we tried economic pressure, we tried lots of things. I only see two more options:
- Give up, crawl in a corner, and die.
- Blow up pipelines and any other form of direct action that lowers the profitability of burning oil.
Truly, it is a hell of a task to get someone to admit to something when his livelihood depends on him never acknowledging it. A third of a loaf is better than no bread (but keep aiming for more bread).
I am cautiously going to say that COP agreeing on this is a BFD but from what I see, we all need to keep pressure on our local govt's to make the changes we need locally. The money is there (now at least) from the feds!
What is happening here (some funded by IRA) -
restriping roads from 2 lane to 1 lane + bike path
re-engineering interstate so it's easier for bikes + peds to cross safely
free busses forever!!
charging stations everywhere
gov't fleets EV or compressed NG (busses)
massive urban infill in the city center
We're tied with Florida for the most dangerous place in America for pedestrians. I'm hoping that local focus on improving non-car transit will improve that!!
The danger to pedestrians needs to become a bigger issue. We are in sync with the rest of the world in having auto fatalities decrease, but our pedestrian fatalities have skyrocketed compared with everyone else. The fact that light trucks get grills that are ever bigger, flatter ("more intimidating"), and more kid-crushing is not helping.
Pedestrian distraction is a contributing factor also.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/03/health/texting-pedestrian-safety-study-wellness-scli-intl/index.html
I really hope to live long enough to see cities reclaim real estate from cars and make it for people instead. I also hope to live long enough to see the death of the urban truck.
A number of drivers here ignore stop signs and assume that they can turn right at a red light without stopping or looking for cars, never mind pedestrians.
There was a crash near me last week when a car on a north-south street and one on an east-west street appeared to ignore the stop signs simultaneously.
>> CO2 remains the “worst” greenhouse gas since the amount of CO2 the world emits is far greater than any other<<
True. Methane traps heat 30 times more effectively than CO2 but remains in the air for years to a few decades, not centuries. This means that ultimately methane is only 3x as effective in net heat trapped since it is 30x as effective but over 1/10th the lifetime. Thus you need at least 3x the amount of CO2 to get the same warming as your amount of methane. But we have that. And more. So methane DIRECTLY contributes only one half to one fifth of the amount of warming as CO2 (I've seen wildly different numbers).
But worse, methane converts to CO2. It doesn't fall out of the atmosphere the way that CO2 is absorbed by the oceans or get metabolized by living things or weather into the rocks. Instead it becomes CO2 itself, meaning that WELL ACTUALLY the heat trapped by methane emissions isn't always fully calculated in some comparisons you see online (which makes it hard to compare different studies or reports unless they show you the math). Because for every methane molecule you emit, you're essentially committing to a delayed emission of one molecule of CO2.
Yes, CO2 is the biggest problem, but methane is not a small one. Fortunately for us the problem with methane is solved by the same steps as the problem with CO2: find ways to power things that don't involve burning stuff, and then the fossil fuel companies will bring less of that stuff (including less methane) up to the surface where it or its combustion products will inevitably escape into the atmosphere.
The methane problem is the US is less from "powering" things as it is spillage and escape from oil and gas wells.
This piece estimates that half of US methane emissions come from "low-producing" wells.
Link: https://www.eenews.net/articles/study-low-producing-oil-wells-cause-50-of-methane-emissions/ [ this is from Apr 2022 ]
𝐿𝑜𝑤-𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑙𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑙𝑦 ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑈.𝑆. 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑠, 𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑝 6 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦’𝑠 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛, 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑦, 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑖𝑛 𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠, 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑟𝑒ℎ𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑤-𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑒, 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑. 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑙𝑜𝑤-𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑟 “𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙” 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡 𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑡 𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 6 𝑡𝑜 12 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 ℎ𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 — 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒 4 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑡𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟.
“𝑂𝑢𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑦’𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑙𝑜𝑤-𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑠 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑠 88 𝑐𝑜𝑎𝑙-𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑠,” 𝑠𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘 𝑂𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑎, 𝑎 𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐸𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑑 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟, 𝑖𝑛 𝑎 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡.
Yes. I was aware of that, but that dovetails with what I'm saying: the less industrial production of fossil fuels, the more the methane problem is reduced. So we have to stop burning fossil fuels if we want to reduce methane-caused warming. The exact mechanism by which methane emissions are reduced (direct or indirect, etc.) matters less than just knowing that our task is to find ways to power things without burning fossil fuels.
So the problem with methane really is caused by our need to power things through combustion and the eccentricities of the methane problem don't need to be addressed separately: regulations already require wells to be sealed when production is shut down.
I get it - I guess I just saw "power things" and really only thought of direct emissions from transportation, not overall, life-cycle emissions.
Still, this piece from 2020 ( charts updated to 2023 ) doesn't bother to include methane emissions from transportation - and the two largest contributors of methane are agriculture ( cow burps ) and what they call "fugitive emissions" ( which was what I was referring to without knowing the accepted term ).
Link: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
Gah! It's Maths!
Terribly sorry, there, clairence!