Multisatellite data depicts a record-breaking methane leak from a well blowout

Post by h0l0cube » Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 1:55 PM UTC

throwaway290 wrote: post #168

h0l0cube wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can play semantic games with per-capita consumption, but the fact of the matter remains that even if the entirety of the planet, except China and India, went 100% carbon neutral overnight, it would still be impossible to avoid hitting catastrophic climate change thresholds due to GHG emissions from those two countries alone. Of all the countries China is doing the most to curb its emissions. > Global annual rene…

> Of all the countries China is doing the most to curb its emissions. False. They have good green PR to justify other governments funneling taxpayer money via subsidies but meanwhile they are building the most coal plants than any country and this has been only ramping up in recent years with more new fossil fuel power plants being approved year on year. https://www.carbonbrief.org/china-responsible-for-95-of-new-...

Post by skybrian » Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 2:03 PM UTC

conception wrote: post #92

skybrian wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile in California, PG&E underfunded maintenance, perhaps because regulators squeezed too hard? Eventually we had things like the San Bruno gas explosion and wildfires so bad that PG&E went bankrupt. Finding the optimal amount of regulation seems difficult. It seems like too blunt an instrument. Incentives are no substitute for technical people who want to do what's right.

Where on this chart do you see PG&E needing to cut maintenance costs before the wildfires? https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PCG/pacific-gas-el...

Post by marcosdumay » Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 2:15 PM UTC

geysersam wrote: post #167

FeepingCreature wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it can. Why wouldn't it? Say you find a source of energy with zero cost. Now direct air carbon capture is free. "But you don't have a source with zero cost." Great, now we're talking numbers, how cheap does it have to be? So long as energy transport has inevitable losses, carbon capture stands a chance. In other words, IMO we should consider fossil fuel offsetting with carbon capture as a highly lossy energy tra…

Energy is not the only cost. There are also massive material costs building the carbon capture infrastructure. A reasonable estimate for the scale required is the existing fossile fuel infrastructure. That is, direct air carbon capture means investing an amount on the order of the value of the existing fossile fuel infrastructure to spend energy to achieve nothing of value (except offsetting the damage we caused by n…

Post by HL33tibCe7 » Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 2:23 PM UTC

amelius wrote: post #181

HL33tibCe7 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the order of 0. From what I read, we can expect a 1 degree increase if we release somewhere in the ballpark of 100 billion tons of CO2. Using those figures, 3.93 megatons is 0.0000393 degrees. As a point of comparison, humans release roughly 40 gigatons of CO2 per year; 3.93 megatons is 0.0098% of that. As another point of comparison, around 550 gigatons of CO2 is released (and absorbed) by the planet "naturally".…

> As another point of comparison, around 550 gigatons of CO2 is released (and absorbed) by the planet "naturally". So we are currently within 20% of what the planet does naturally, which seems not that bad actually.

Post by jncfhnb » Sat, Jul 20, 2024, 2:28 PM UTC

486sx33 wrote: post #36

jncfhnb wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who knows how to handle a billion refugees?

[flagged]