It's no wonder so many of us get duped. This is why I question everything from EVs to solar panels to (yes, I have one) hybrid vehicles, and then question again and again. The wool is constantly being pulled over our eyes. There has never been a more urgent time to be skeptical than right now.
The unfortunate thing about the WEF is that the right wing has decided to cling on to it as part of the elites control us, baby eating, human trafficking conspiracies narrative. While they are having their fever dreams they overlook all of the actual bad shit that is being done, re extracting wealth from workers, literal secret backroom deals with heads of state, Lucrative public/private partnerships, destroying the environment while patting themselves on the back etc. It is truly a huge scam to help corporate heads and leadership believe their own bullshit. When faced with actual difficult problems the solution is always somehow, more talks.
Exactly! Talks to mollify the public rather than taking action. Will anyone stand up in these talks and speak the plain truth about what's happening? A kid from Sweden named Greta tried to do that and they said she was just a kid, what does she know. But few adults with experience are willing to take that stand. Captain Paul Watson did and he got booted off the U.S. branch of the activist agency he created, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Talk talk talk without action.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,685
edited October 2022
What will it be folks? Heading fast for catastrophe, or happy days are almost hear again (by a thread)? Spin the dial and see if we will have our lucky day! Land on The Guardian, BRRREEHHHH, buzzer sound, you lose. Land on NY Times, YAHOOOO! You're a winner!
What will it be folks? Heading fast for catastrophe, or happy days are almost hear again (by a thread)? Spin the dial and see if we will have our lucky day! Land on The Guardian, BRRREEHHHH, buzzer sound, you lose. Land on NY Times, YAHOOOO! You're a winner!
What will it be folks? Heading fast for catastrophe, or happy days are almost hear again (by a thread)? Spin the dial and see if we will have our lucky day! Land on The Guardian, BRRREEHHHH, buzzer sound, you lose. Land on NY Times, YAHOOOO! You're a winner!
It's no wonder so many of us get duped. This is why I question everything from EVs to solar panels to (yes, I have one) hybrid vehicles, and then question again and again. The wool is constantly being pulled over our eyes. There has never been a more urgent time to be skeptical than right now.
The unfortunate thing about the WEF is that the right wing has decided to cling on to it as part of the elites control us, baby eating, human trafficking conspiracies narrative. While they are having their fever dreams they overlook all of the actual bad shit that is being done, re extracting wealth from workers, literal secret backroom deals with heads of state, Lucrative public/private partnerships, destroying the environment while patting themselves on the back etc. It is truly a huge scam to help corporate heads and leadership believe their own bullshit. When faced with actual difficult problems the solution is always somehow, more talks.
Exactly! Talks to mollify the public rather than taking action. Will anyone stand up in these talks and speak the plain truth about what's happening? A kid from Sweden named Greta tried to do that and they said she was just a kid, what does she know. But few adults with experience are willing to take that stand. Captain Paul Watson did and he got booted off the U.S. branch of the activist agency he created, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Talk talk talk without action.
Biden signed the best US law ever for the climate, and his party is about to get demolished in the midterms . If we can’t get independents and moderates to join us, we have no chance improving our climate issues. If the gop takes over by 2024, it’s going to be full speed ahead with coal, which is a zillion times worse than nat gas, despite what the we forum link above wants us to believe.
the problem with the climate movement among liberals is that it is splintered into many different directions. If there were more focus on specific things that need to happen asap, the movement would have a chance to expand over time. Even if an anti coal platform would be painful to Dems short term, an anti coal drumbeat over time would provide focus for the movement.
Instead we get EVs promoted everywhere, solar panels on our roofs and attacks against nat gas, which short term, provide almost no benefit for the climate. Let’s end coal and replace fossil fuel power plants with wind and solar generation, that’s where the focus needs to be for the next 15 years
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,685
It's no wonder so many of us get duped. This is why I question everything from EVs to solar panels to (yes, I have one) hybrid vehicles, and then question again and again. The wool is constantly being pulled over our eyes. There has never been a more urgent time to be skeptical than right now.
The unfortunate thing about the WEF is that the right wing has decided to cling on to it as part of the elites control us, baby eating, human trafficking conspiracies narrative. While they are having their fever dreams they overlook all of the actual bad shit that is being done, re extracting wealth from workers, literal secret backroom deals with heads of state, Lucrative public/private partnerships, destroying the environment while patting themselves on the back etc. It is truly a huge scam to help corporate heads and leadership believe their own bullshit. When faced with actual difficult problems the solution is always somehow, more talks.
Exactly! Talks to mollify the public rather than taking action. Will anyone stand up in these talks and speak the plain truth about what's happening? A kid from Sweden named Greta tried to do that and they said she was just a kid, what does she know. But few adults with experience are willing to take that stand. Captain Paul Watson did and he got booted off the U.S. branch of the activist agency he created, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Talk talk talk without action.
Biden signed the best US law ever for the climate, and his party is about to get demolished in the midterms . If we can’t get independents and moderates to join us, we have no chance improving our climate issues. If the gop takes over by 2024, it’s going to be full speed ahead with coal, which is a zillion times worse than nat gas, despite what the we forum link above wants us to believe.
the problem with the climate movement among liberals is that it is splintered into many different directions. If there were more focus on specific things that need to happen asap, the movement would have a chance to expand over time. Even if an anti coal platform would be painful to Dems short term, an anti coal drumbeat over time would provide focus for the movement.
Instead we get EVs promoted everywhere, solar panels on our roofs and attacks against nat gas, which short term, provide almost no benefit for the climate. Let’s end coal and replace fossil fuel power plants with wind and solar generation, that’s where the focus needs to be for the next 15 years
I'm certainly thankful for Bidens actrions, but- sorry to say- it's still not nearly enough.
As Dems getting demolishes, Maybe, maybe not. The polls are almost useless anymore. Michael Moore predicts the Dems will do well and he was right about predicting Trump would win, so we'll see. In any case, don't think we can predict this election very well.
Everybody needs to get serious about climate change and soon and start to realize the one party is better about climate, but neither are going to do enough. Hate to say that, but it's true. Dems will do more, but not nearly enough. We kid ourselves thinking they will.
We are not going to reverse global warming, but we could slow it downby reducing carbon emissions. We all know how to do that. There are no sides here. We either do what needs to be done or we don't.
I agree that ending coal is a high priority Wind and solar will help some, but they require huge amounts of energy and petroleum to produce, create a lot of landfill trash as they break down. They are merely a stop gap measure.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,685
OK, instead of me saying the same thing over and over, here's a plan. See what y'all think:
A simple solution to global warming and other environmental issues:
First, scientifically deduce the sustainable footprint for one human being. Assign the number "6" to represent the sustainable footprint for one human being. Two people's footprint = 12
Next, make a choice of one of these two things:
1. Do not reproduce
2. Reproduce
Have any person not reproducing be able to live beyond 6 to as high as 8 for their footprint. A non-reproducer can always opt to stay at 6.
For each child born, adjust each person's footprint thus:
For one offspring: Parent A and parent B and child reduce their footprint to 4 (3 X 4 = 12) For 2 offspring: Parent A, Parent B and child A and child B reduce footprint to 3 (4 X 3 = 12)
Etc. For single mom, sperm donor counts a parent. For test tube babies, well, I don't know- everyone in the lab reduces their footprint? Gotta work that one out.
It may seem unfair for non-reproducing people to live at a higher standard, but what better incentive to not reproduce?!
Problems solved.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,685
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
A harsh reality, but reality indeed- and the kind we don't hear any politician talk about*.
Evidence yet again that we are not going to Simple Green our way out of our environmental issues.
*And if I'm wrong, tell me who does!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
A harsh reality, but reality indeed- and the kind we don't hear any politician talk about*.
Evidence yet again that we are not going to Simple Green our way out of our environmental issues.
*And if I'm wrong, tell me who does!
EVs can play a big role in improving the environment, just not yet. Dems are splintered all over the place,lacking focus. The plan to improve the climate should be focused on power plants and reducing/eliminating coal around the globe.
Instead we are misplacing priorities. EVs and solar panels have toxic by products with zero regulation for safe disposal. At the same time, the left fights things like new pipelines, which are strictly regulated and transport the least harmful fossil fuel. Yes that comment risks a bomb comment fromSC, but if regulations were enforced, leakage from production and pipes would not occur. So if we don’t build new pipes, what is going to be used instead? A dirtier form of transportation.
Yet we are full speed ahead on toxic solar panels and EVs (which will be important down the road, once we know how to safely produce and regulate, and source usage with renewables)
The government, yes the gubmint, needs to make the companies accountable and have them made w recyclable material and without toxic ones. They can do it but choose not to.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,685
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
A harsh reality, but reality indeed- and the kind we don't hear any politician talk about*.
Evidence yet again that we are not going to Simple Green our way out of our environmental issues.
*And if I'm wrong, tell me who does!
EVs can play a big role in improving the environment, just not yet. Dems are splintered all over the place,lacking focus. The plan to improve the climate should be focused on power plants and reducing/eliminating coal around the globe.
Instead we are misplacing priorities. EVs and solar panels have toxic by products with zero regulation for safe disposal. At the same time, the left fights things like new pipelines, which are strictly regulated and transport the least harmful fossil fuel. Yes that comment risks a bomb comment fromSC, but if regulations were enforced, leakage from production and pipes would not occur. So if we don’t build new pipes, what is going to be used instead? A dirtier form of transportation.
Yet we are full speed ahead on toxic solar panels and EVs (which will be important down the road, once we know how to safely produce and regulate, and source usage with renewables)
I agree that would help big-time but I would place slowing population growth and reducing consumption in developed countries just as high.
The government, yes the gubmint, needs to make the companies accountable and have them made w recyclable material and without toxic ones. They can do it but choose not to.
Sadly true.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
well it looks like our strategic goals of being the LNG supplier to Europe is going to come with a devastating environmental cost..Can't say I am shocked that the cost of creating stability in the current profit driven capitalistic framework is just creating more instability somewhere else.
"The White House vision for delivering gas to Europe will serve to deliver climate chaos across the globe, at a moment when we simply cannot build new fossil fuel facilities at all," said Food & Water Watch.
As the United Nations released its latest report showing that the continued failure of wealthy countries to immediately transition away from fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global heating, a new analysis warned the White House to scrap its plans to export billions of cubic meters of fracked gas to Europe annually until 2030.
The proposal, which the Biden administration claims "is consistent with our shared net-zero goals," would generate fossil fuel emissions equivalent to 400 million metric tons of carbon each year, according to the analysis by Food & Water Watch, which warned the plan "would spell climate disaster."
"Scaling up renewables to this level would avoid over 500 million metric tons of fossil fuels, no matter if it is replaced with solar or wind. The choice is clear."
"One year of emissions from 50 billion cubic meters (BCM) of [liquefied natural gas] LNG would be equivalent to yearly emissions from 100 coal plants," reads the group's report, titled LNG: The U.S. and E.U.'s Deal for Disaster.
LNG, which is created by cooling fracked gas to create a clear, colorless liquid, has been touted by the oil industry "as the climate-friendly alternative to Russian gas, but problems arise quickly, as a standard methane leakage rate from U.S.-sourced LNG has not been measured," Food & Water Watch adds.
The U.S. is already the world's biggest exporter of LNG, with exports averaging 0.32 BCM per day in the first half of this year. More than 70% of U.S. exports went to Europe this year, and while the Biden administration's plan has promised an extra 15 BCM of LNG to Europe this year, the current pace "will triple" that pledge, according to the report.
"The White House vision for delivering gas to Europe will serve to deliver climate chaos across the globe, at a moment when we simply cannot build new fossil fuel facilities at all," said Food & Water Watch research director Amanda Starbuck. "The White House must work with political leaders across the globe to find a safer alternative than doubling down on dirty gas."
The U.N. report released Wednesday estimated that planetary heating could reach 2.9°C by the end of the century if policymakers do not shift away from fossil fuel extraction promptly—a level of heating which could threaten hundreds of millions of people with sea level rise.
Food & Water Watch also detailed the immediate harm the Biden administration will be doing to communities near fracking sites in the U.S. if it moves ahead with the LNG exports plan.
"Communities plagued by fracking experience well documented and severe environmental impacts, which fall disproportionately on frontline populations that include rural, lower-income communities and communities of color," the group's report reads. "Those living near fracking sites are at increased risk of contracting cancer and a host of other medical disorders, with pregnant women and children at even greater risk."
How is it possible to "immediately transition away from fossil fuels?" It takes years if not decades to build infrastructure for existing tech.
To build out global infrastructure for emerging but not yet implementable tech? Seems like that's at minimum a 10 year wait.
So we freeze our arses off in the meantime?
I'm guessing what the author meant was "faze out". I believe the term "immediately transition" refers to a chemical reaction.
As far as how to faze out something like that, I think it's already been happening for some time with the continued increase in EV charging stations and widespread use (in developed countries) of solar panels. What all that will not faze out is environmental degradation. The irony is huge.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
How is it possible to "immediately transition away from fossil fuels?" It takes years if not decades to build infrastructure for existing tech.
To build out global infrastructure for emerging but not yet implementable tech? Seems like that's at minimum a 10 year wait.
So we freeze our arses off in the meantime?
We could actively work to make the fossil fuel systems we have in place more sustainable. There is of course no clean coal, but if transitioning from coal too quickly in favor of LNG and trying to be the savior of Europe via LNG is going to cause more long term harm than short term help I would say work with what we have but don't expand it if we don't have to. Pretty easy to keep some of the infrastructure that we have in place as we transition away from fossil fuels rather than double down on fossil fuels or replacing one fossil fuel for another. No one needs to freeze their asses off, statements like that are hyperbole which keeps anything positive from being done and keeps FF companies calling the shots
Read the article and the linked report.
"One year of emissions from 50 billion cubic meters (BCM) of [liquefied natural gas] LNG would be equivalent to yearly emissions from 100 coal plants," reads the group's report, titled LNG: The U.S. and E.U.'s Deal for Disaster. "
"Even after all of this, U.S. production will not dig Europe out of its energy crisis — gas executives have said as much. The U.S. industry is not increasing production any further, keeping supplies tight and prices high.55 This will hit the European public hardest, particularly lower-income individuals who pay disproportionately more for heating.56 Experts anticipate that food bank participation in the Netherlands will rise 15 percent in the coming months, as families are forced to choose between eating and heating their homes across the region — all while Big Oil profits.57"
How is it possible to "immediately transition away from fossil fuels?" It takes years if not decades to build infrastructure for existing tech.
To build out global infrastructure for emerging but not yet implementable tech? Seems like that's at minimum a 10 year wait.
So we freeze our arses off in the meantime?
We could actively work to make the fossil fuel systems we have in place more sustainable. There is of course no clean coal, but if transitioning from coal too quickly in favor of LNG and trying to be the savior of Europe via LNG is going to cause more long term harm than short term help I would say work with what we have but don't expand it if we don't have to. Pretty easy to keep some of the infrastructure that we have in place as we transition away from fossil fuels rather than double down on fossil fuels or replacing one fossil fuel for another. No one needs to freeze their asses off, statements like that are hyperbole which keeps anything positive from being done and keeps FF companies calling the shots
Read the article and the linked report.
"One year of emissions from 50 billion cubic meters (BCM) of [liquefied natural gas] LNG would be equivalent to yearly emissions from 100 coal plants," reads the group's report, titled LNG: The U.S. and E.U.'s Deal for Disaster. "
The sourcing on that BCM stat does not seem solid, it’s based on an EPA calculator and I do not see LNG as a source https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator . It’s a very unusual way to make a claim like coal is cleaner than LNG, which is a very unusual claim.
Most sources on the net will state LNG is 40% cleaner than coal. There has been recent reporting about methane leakage, however there are regulations and monitors in place that are supposed to stop that from occurring. Keep in mind solar panels, EVs and wind turbines have almost no regulated method to monitor and stop its version of leakage, which is its disposal. That’s a time bomb waiting to happen.
…
I don’t think LNG is widely viewed as the future but it’s being used now as a short term disaster remediation. There’s no way to scale up renewable infrastructure on a short term basis caused by the Russian war. Come up with an entire brand new industry and infrastructure in a few months? Sounds like a pipe dream. Keep in mind LNG is being used because the current heat infrastructure in Europe is gas based. It’s like the existing usb-c plug to charge the Samsung phone. Anything else would be like trying to recharge an iPhone with an android charger. ….
Prices for nat gas peaked July thru Sept and fell off a cliff in October. Why? There are tankers lined up in Europe overwhelming resources to get the LNG into storage. The market right now is telling us supplies are in place right now, but that can change in a hurry with an artic blast. The last two months demand for nat gas in the industry has actually been below the norm from what I have experienced in past years for the fall. Storage in the northern US states is at capacity in anticipation of the heating season. And yes, there very well could be a lot of cold people in Europe this winter, that is not hyperbole. There is just no way to replace Russian gas in full. I’m not familiar with using coal for heat on a widespread basis, but that sounds like the dirtiest way possible to generate heat.
Perhaps existing LNG infrastructure could run at 120% of normal capacity and conservation maybe can save another 20+%. Maybe a little more for both. But that’s clearly not enough. The key is that LNG can be done with infrastructure and tech that currently exists. Clean renewable heat would require solar power generation and transmission, and then homes and businesses need the electric heat pumps to turn the solar energy to heat. The infrastructure for that does not exist in big numbers in todays world.
…
“The U.S. is exporting more LNG to Europe as a result of Russia’s war in Ukraine and cuts made to natural gas supplies ahead of winter, but there has been a buildup of LNG vessels waiting to unload at ports with European infrastructure unable to handle the increased LNG shipments.”
The problem with renewables is scaling up to macro supply levels and transmission logistics.
Using the US electric transmission industry as an example, there is abundent transmission capacity from eastern Canada which needs to get to the northeast US, because there is abundent clean supply to the north and usage to the south. This is the current logistical setup
The challenge for wind and solar is its anticipated to be abundant in the central US, but is needed along the coasts where population is largest. The transmission to move the energy from production regions to usage just does not currently exist in the capacity needed
Sure we'd love for renewables to solve the Russia gas problem, but building out an entirely new infrastructure, with tech that barely exists today, is a time consuming logistics challenge. The type thats measured more in a decade or so.
..
Its like when PJ loves to play the small towns. They overwhelm existing infrastructure to handle all the big metropolitan fans traveling out to the small towns to stay at hotels.
For example, I was almost stranded in Ottawa due to a hotel error, in the midst of a thousand mile round trip journey. Driving 500 miles with no sleep? Not an issue in the PJ planning world when they set up a tour
Most days getting a hotel would be no big deal in Ottawa. When PJ is in town on a Saturday night, there were no rooms available from Ottawa to Kingston almost to Montreal.
A good analogy for the EU heating problems
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,685
The problem with renewables is scaling up to macro supply levels and transmission logistics.
Using the US electric transmission industry as an example, there is abundent transmission capacity from eastern Canada which needs to get to the northeast US, because there is abundent clean supply to the north and usage to the south. This is the current logistical setup
The challenge for wind and solar is its anticipated to be abundant in the central US, but is needed along the coasts where population is largest. The transmission to move the energy from production regions to usage just does not currently exist in the capacity needed
Sure we'd love for renewables to solve the Russia gas problem, but building out an entirely new infrastructure, with tech that barely exists today, is a time consuming logistics challenge. The type thats measured more in a decade or so.
..
Its like when PJ loves to play the small towns. They overwhelm existing infrastructure to handle all the big metropolitan fans traveling out to the small towns to stay at hotels.
For example, I was almost stranded in Ottawa due to a hotel error, in the midst of a thousand mile round trip journey. Driving 500 miles with no sleep? Not an issue in the PJ planning world when they set up a tour
Most days getting a hotel would be no big deal in Ottawa. When PJ is in town on a Saturday night, there were no rooms available from Ottawa to Kingston almost to Montreal.
A good analogy for the EU heating problems
If Pearl Jam wants to play small towns, why not play a smaller venue with ticket availability to accommodate the size of the town. Also make tickets available locally first. That would be the appropriate and responsible thing to do, right? Same hold true for our society in general. If we don't live sustainably, we run into problems. Simple logic.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,695
CARAUARI, Brazil (AP) — Even in the most biodiverse rainforest of the world, the pirarucu, also known as arapaima, stands out.
First, there is its mammoth size: It can weigh up to 200 kilos (440 pounds), by far the largest of 2,300 known fish species in the Amazon. It is found primarily in floodplain lakes across the Amazon basin, including the region of Medio Jurua.
Second, the giant fish not so long ago nearly vanished from Jurua, as vessels swept the lakes with large nets. The illegal and unsustainable fishing left river and Indigenous communities struggling to catch their staple food. And it left pirarucu designated as threatened with extinction, unless trade in the fish is closely controlled by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
But now something remarkable has happened. The fish has come back to the lakes of Medio Jurua. The story of how involves people of different backgrounds cooperating on many levels — a vision of what's possible that veterans of the Amazon say they've seen nowhere else across the vast region.
Voice of Fabiano Maisonnave: Explaining pirarucu (AP Video/Jorge Saenz and Maisonnave)
Change began in the late 1990s. With the assistance of a Dutch Catholic priest, rubber tappers organized and led a campaign to persuade the federal government to create the Medio Jurua Extractive Reserve. They proposed that river communities could take from the forest and its lakes — up to a point — and within protected areas.
It worked. Now, local communities produce açai, vegetable oils and rubber, and they leave the forest standing. Most successful of all has been the management of pirarucu.
Riverine settler communities, organized into associations, also reached agreement with neighboring Deni Indigenous people, who have suffered in the past from invasions by rubber-tappers and fishermen. Now they are part of the managed fishing of pirarucu, which improved relations between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous.
Managing the comeback has required social organization, cooperation and complex logistics. Illegal fishing has been sharply reduced. Pirarucu are flourishing.
The virtuous cycle plays out in the region of Carauari, which stretches along 650 kilometers (404 miles) of the Jurua River and is home to 35,000 people.
To see how things could have gone, look no further than the neighboring Javari Valley, where British journalist Dom Phillips and Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira were murdered last June.
The backdrop of that tragedy is a decades-old dispute between Indigenous communities and former rubber tappers who were hired by local businessmen to do illegal fishing, targeting mostly the pirarucu. Two local fishermen confessed to the crimes.
Illegal fishing is rampant in Brazil. It's the second most frequent environmental crime on protected land, after logging, according to an academic study based on official data. Brazil´s conservation agency issued 1,160 infraction notices for illegal fishing — a quarter of all infractions — over a recent five-year period.
“Javari is a portrait of what Medio Jurua was like in the 1980s,” Manoel Cunha, the main leader of the local rubber tappers, told The Associated Press during a boat trip to Sao Raimundo, his home community and one of the ones that takes part in regulated fishing. “We managed to get rid of fishing companies and invading fishermen by monitoring and management. You have been on this river for days now, and you have not seen any fishing boats except the ones from our organizations. There is no more room for them here.”
Pirarucu fishing is done once a year, around September, the period of lowest water. Fishing quotas are possible due to another remarkable characteristic of the pirarucu: It is one of the few fish species in the world that surfaces to breathe. It does that with a big splash, flashing its red tail out of the water.
A local fisherman and a researcher in the nearby Mamirarua region developed a way to take advantage of this, and count the fish since they stay underwater for no more than 20 minutes. The government now recognizes this counting method.
The survey is done once a year by certified fishermen, after taking a course. By law, only 30% of the pirarucu in a certain area can be fished the following year.
This controlled fishing has led to a surge in its population in regions where it's employed. In Sao Raimundo region, there were 1,335 pirarucus in the nearby lakes in 2011, when the managed fishing began. Last year, there were 4,092 specimens, according to their records.
In the Carauari region, the number of pirarucu spiked from 4,916, in 2011, to 46,839, ten years later.
An AP team accompanied the first of the seven days of fishing in Sao Raimundo. Picture a few dozen houses, with running water, connected by well-maintained wooden footbridges amid açai palm trees. Thirty-four families call it home. Most belong to Cunha´s extended family, whose ancestors arrived in the region from the impoverished and drought-ravaged Northeast during the rubber boom to work as tappers.
“Our pirarucu is so tasty, everybody that eats it falls in love with it and wants more," Rosilda da Cunha, a sister of Manoel who lives in Sao Raimundo, told the AP.
Pirarucu bring money into the community, she said. This year, the goal is to buy a solar panel system to replace the diesel-fueled generator. Another share of the money goes to the community members who participate in the fishing. Women's and men's salaries are equal.
To catch pirarucu, fishermen use special, stronger nets they weave themselves. The holes are large enough to allow smaller specimens to go through, as taking fish under five feet is prohibited.
When the fishers catch one, they haul in the net and club the fish in the head. Then they put it in their small boat. When it´s very heavy, two or three men are required to do the job.
The pirarucus are then taken from the lakes to a large boat by the Jurua River. There they are gutted, a task that is mostly done by women, and put on ice. All the production is bought by the Association of Rural Producers of Carauari, known as Asproc, the region´s umbrella organization, so the fishers are never at the mercy of middlemen.
Founded by rubber tappers who wanted to liberate themselves from slave-like labor conditions, Asproc has grown to be one of the most important grassroots entities in the entire Amazon. It runs programs on everything from sanitation, to community markets to higher education, innovating along the way. It now sells pirarucu to Brazil´s main cities including Sao Paulo and Brasília, a complex endeavor that involves several days of transport by boat and road and usually takes more than two weeks.
Asproc´s success has attracted several partnerships. One is counterintuitive — the United States Forest Service, which supported the creation of a brand, the Gosto da Amazônia (Amazon Taste), that promotes the pirarucu nationwide, and the Agency for International Development (USAID), which helped to finance a warehouse for processing fish in Carauari city, where the pirarucu is cut, frozen and packaged.
“This project is unique as it requires a strong governance structure,” Ted Gehr, USAID mission director in Brazil, told the AP during his first visit to the Sao Raimundo community. “Everybody is in agreement that they may have to sacrifice and not be able to fish all of the pirarucu that are available but knowing that they’ll reproduce more, and that in the long run they will be more valuable."
The Medio Jurua region is blessed with remoteness. It has no access by road. So far it is free from the deforestation and fire that have been devastating elsewhere in the Amazon. But the smoke that has left the skies grayish in September is a reminder that the destruction is not far away. The challenge is to be a strong organization and economy to stave off future threats, says Cunha.
“Had we not organized ourselves through fishing management to protect our environments and take our fish, instead of others taking them from us, we could be in the same situation as our colleagues from Javari,” says Cunha, who is the head of the Medio Jurua Extractive Reserve, a position usually held by government officials. “Had they organized themselves earlier, they could have saved the lives of those two comrades.”
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,695
LONDON (AP) — In the Putumayo region of the Colombian Amazon, Segundo Meneses' daily routine took him to the Chufiya river, its banks verdant and waters alive with catfish and piranha. On one morning seven years ago, he noticed a dark film lapping the shore. Where the river turned a bend, it turned to black. It was an oil slick that he says went on to sicken his young family and poison their cows and pigs.
The British law firm Leigh Day is now suing Amerisur, the oil company operating in the region, on behalf of 171 Putumayo farmers, including Meneses. That spill was not the only complication with this particular oil operation. Nearby Siona Indigenous people say they reject the oil pumping and will fight it. This region is also awash in coca production and former rebel groups dispute drug territory, sometimes disrupting the flow of oil. Then there are reports by United Nations rapporteurs and an interfaith non-profit group that say the oil company, Amerisur Resources PLC, may have worked with rebels to pressure the Siona and local farmers to cease their opposition in order to keep oil flowing.
Yet none of this seemed to deter an $900 million oil and gas firm based in Chile named GeoPark Ltd. from buying Amerisur two years ago. GeoPark successfully lined up banks to help it obtain the Putumayo oilfields, indicating that even with climate changes hitting wide areas of the globe, backing for the activities that cause it is still available. Demand for crude oil continues to rise, not fall, underscoring the lure for oil companies and banks to keep operating as they have for decades.
“If banks help finance a company like GeoPark, it seems there is nothing they will refuse to touch,” said Maaike Beenes, banks and climate lead at the non-profit BankTrack, an environmental advocacy group based in the Netherlands. This deal, she said, raises numerous red flags because of Amerisur's legacy, "from doing business in a conflict zone to fossil fuel expansion in sensitive ecosystems of the Amazon, to a history of violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights.”
The way GeoPark bought all of British-based Amerisur in January 2020, absorbing the company and keeping its brand, is a window into how some banks support fossil fuel projects even when they appear to go against their own policies.
Citibank and Itaú Unibanco offered GeoPark a bridge loan. The company then looked to banks for help issuing $350 million worth of bonds to pay for the purchase, Bloomberg data and public statements show. Brazilian Itaú Unibanco and Citibank served as “bookrunners” on the bonds, and the Bank of New York Mellon agreed to facilitate payments on them. Bookrunners advertise bonds, coordinate orders and generally use their reputation to lend confidence on bond offers.
The deal enabled GeoPark to obtain Amerisur's main asset: 11 oilfields strung across the highly biodiverse Putumayo basin. They now comprise almost a third of GeoPark's hydrocarbon fields, the rest dotted across Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru.
The next year, in 2021, U.S. and European financial institutions helped GeoPark restructure its debt, making more money available to the company. Bank of America, Credit Suisse and JPMorgan advised on issuing another $150 million in bonds, GeoPark press releases show.
Even being the client of such important banks lent GeoPark credibility, said former bond trader Jo Richardson of the Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute, who analyzed data and documents from the deal.
A SULLIED RIVER
In a filing with the British High Court, Segundo Meneses called the Chufiya river “an important source of food for my family and the whole community.”
But the river was changed by events that day. According to court documents, an armed group attacked five Amerisur oil tanker trucks and forced the drivers to empty their loads of crude oil into a wetland, where it flowed into the Agua Negra tributary, and from there into the Chufiya and beyond.
For the Colombian oil industry, rebel attacks on oil infrastructure have been a plague for decades. But the farmers argue this attack was foreseeable, given ongoing conflict in the area. For a long time afterwards, the cassava and plantain farmers say, their water was contaminated.
Fishing became impossible, said Meneses, the edible fish gone.
“I caught a 15-kilo fish (33 lbs.) and it tasted like oil, and I couldn’t eat it,” he said in an affidavit.
In the dry season, the family had no choice but to drink from and wash in the river, which gave them diarrhea, rashes and stomach aches, he said.
“For us water is life,” Meneses continued. “Maybe I will die tomorrow but my children will still live here and I do not want them to live in an area with such polluted water.”
GeoPark’s spokesperson said the company has caused no contamination, maintains the highest standards to protect the environment, and is committed to compensation for any negative impacts. Amerisur, now Amerisur Resources Ltd, cleaned up the spilled oil, the spokesperson said, and would defend itself in the courts. Regarding liability for past acts, she said, they are “questions of law and fact on a case-by-case basis.”
OIL IN A CONFLICT ZONE
For critics, the Amerisur assets should never have found a buyer, or financing. There were numerous red flags for banks considering helping with this oil deal, they say. Months before the first bond issuance, the Siona of the Buenavista reservation told GeoPark in a public statement they would not allow oil production or “extractive operations in our territory.” They said Amerisur had already tried to take their natural resources through “illegal and rigged action.” The tribe said it would protect its territory from “grave risks due to toxic wastes,” and “impacts on our spiritual practices.”
Moira Birss, director for climate and finance at the non-profit advocacy group Amazon Watch said GeoPark is "running enormous political, legal, reputational, climate, and social risks.”
Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognizes the Siona as at risk of extermination. Also before the bond deal, a 2019 ruling found Amerisur left explosives on Siona land during seismic studies. The company was ordered to cease this activity. In a third, ongoing case, the Buenavista Siona, who say their lands are overlapped by two GeoPark oilfields, are seeking 52,000 hectares (128,000 acres) of disputed territory there to be added to their reservation.
GeoPark denied in an email it is working in the Siona reservation or the additional land sought by them. Relationships with Indigenous people are based on “dialogue, respect and building trust,” the company said. The company says in 2021 it requested Colombia to cancel the concession to the oilfield the Siona say overlaps their land, and is waiting for this to happen.
PARAMILITARIES IN THE AREA
The Putumayo region is also a hotbed of coca cultivation and cocaine trafficking. Splinter groups of former FARC rebels fight each other for control of the trade. One faction, the Border Command, is listed with the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist organization. In December 2020, before the second bond deal, a respected Colombian human rights NGO's report made a strong claim. The Interfaith Justice and Peace Commission alleged the Border Command was collaborating with Amerisur to protect its oil operations.
Displaced farmers had told the commission they were ordered by the rebels not to oppose Amerisur’s exploration, one rebel reportedly saying, “We have negotiated with the company and will assure the operation.”
Five United Nations special rapporteurs for human rights also wrote to the chief of the U.N. Development Programme, Achim Steiner, warning: “Alleged links exist between the company (Amerisur) and the paramilitaries present in the area, which have been denounced by the Siona Peoples before the Constitutional Court.”
The U.N. rapporteurs wrote: “Economic actors have allied with irregular armed actors to generate, within the Indigenous communities, acts of violence that ... displace the Indigenous people from their ancestral territories, thus clearing the way for ... these projects.”
Colombian investigative news outlet Cuestión Pública, working with the news organization Mongabay, said two independent sources said paramilitaries had forced a farming community to attend meetings where they were ordered not to obstruct Amerisur and should accept any offers it makes. Two other independent sources confirmed an alliance between Amerisur and the rebel group, their report said.
And the Ombudsman’s Office of Colombia, the country's human rights agency, published a risk alert on its website saying community complaints have been received about pressure exerted by “illegal armed actors” to allow oil extraction. Amerisur was not named in that alert. But the report did note Amerisur is the one of the two largest operators in the area of Putumayo.
GeoPark rejected any allegation of collaboration with Border Command as “100% false.”
“GeoPark has never had any relationship with illegal armed groups and demands the same of its employees and the entire supply chain,” a spokesperson said.
BANK SUPPORT
The backing by the banks buoyed GeoPark. In April 2021, James F. Park, then CEO, said in a press release the deal “demonstrates the support and credibility we have earned in international capital markets.” This puts the company in a “stronger, more flexible, less risky and less costly position,” he said.
Citibank, Itaú Unibanco, and the Bank of New York Mellon all said environmental issues were of great importance to them. BNY Mellon said it provided no direct financing or loans. Citibank and Itaú also emphasized they seriously consider social risks and conduct due diligence. Citi said it is strengthening these policies. JPMorgan said it reviews all sensitive deals with clients.
Bank of America and Credit Suisse declined to comment.
Meanwhile, in the rainforest, oil pumping continues. Meneses and his fellow farmers hope for a judgement before Christmas; British courts have ordered GeoPark to set aside 3.2 million pounds (U.S. $3.8 million) to pay if the farmers win.
______
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
It's just as good of a read the second time. All these corporate self serving bullshit talks with empty pledges and broken promises. I don't know how people can trust any of it.
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,685
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
It's just as good of a read the second time. All these corporate self serving bullshit talks with empty pledges and broken promises. I don't know how people can trust any of it.
Hit the nail right on the head, my friend. The whole COP this is a farce propagated by bullshit artists who, unfortunately, are quite adept at fooling massive numbers of people.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
It's just as good of a read the second time. All these corporate self serving bullshit talks with empty pledges and broken promises. I don't know how people can trust any of it.
Hit the nail right on the head, my friend. The whole COP this is a farce propagated by bullshit artists who, unfortunately, are quite adept at fooling massive numbers of people.
Isn’t cop27 better than what is occurring in the USA tomorrow, independents voting for republicans to control America’s wallet? The rest of the world is at least trying to come up with something while Americans are voting Republican, because independents vote mostly based on how cheap gas costs to fill up the tank
And we can curse out corporations for all their ills, but we are not getting there without their help. Most major companies, including coke, are looking to cut emissions 25 to50 percent in the next decade or two - without their investment (and pressure from within - their employees) Americans will continue to elect republicans who will push for more coal, by far the biggest pollution problem, because alternatives to coal currently exist. Unlike musk and his snake oil vehicles. And of course more drill baby drill. Can’t wait for America’s tomorrow.
My reply is why Dems lose a lot of elections, a short attack is much easier to communicate than a nuanced message.
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
It's just as good of a read the second time. All these corporate self serving bullshit talks with empty pledges and broken promises. I don't know how people can trust any of it.
Hit the nail right on the head, my friend. The whole COP this is a farce propagated by bullshit artists who, unfortunately, are quite adept at fooling massive numbers of people.
Isn’t cop27 better than what is occurring in the USA tomorrow, independents voting for republicans to control America’s wallet? The rest of the world is at least trying to come up with something while Americans are voting Republican, because independents vote mostly based on how cheap gas costs to fill up the tank
And we can curse out corporations for all their ills, but we are not getting there without their help. Most major companies, including coke, are looking to cut emissions 25 to50 percent in the next decade or two - without their investment (and pressure from within - their employees) Americans will continue to elect republicans who will push for more coal, by far the biggest pollution problem, because alternatives to coal currently exist. Unlike musk and his snake oil vehicles. And of course more drill baby drill. Can’t wait for America’s tomorrow.
My reply is why Dems lose a lot of elections, a short attack is much easier to communicate than a nuanced message.
No. Both will lead to disaster. That's like asking would you rather lose an eye or a hand. Neither for me please.
Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,685
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
It's just as good of a read the second time. All these corporate self serving bullshit talks with empty pledges and broken promises. I don't know how people can trust any of it.
Hit the nail right on the head, my friend. The whole COP this is a farce propagated by bullshit artists who, unfortunately, are quite adept at fooling massive numbers of people.
Isn’t cop27 better than what is occurring in the USA tomorrow, independents voting for republicans to control America’s wallet? The rest of the world is at least trying to come up with something while Americans are voting Republican, because independents vote mostly based on how cheap gas costs to fill up the tank
And we can curse out corporations for all their ills, but we are not getting there without their help. Most major companies, including coke, are looking to cut emissions 25 to50 percent in the next decade or two - without their investment (and pressure from within - their employees) Americans will continue to elect republicans who will push for more coal, by far the biggest pollution problem, because alternatives to coal currently exist. Unlike musk and his snake oil vehicles. And of course more drill baby drill. Can’t wait for America’s tomorrow.
My reply is why Dems lose a lot of elections, a short attack is much easier to communicate than a nuanced message.
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
It's just as good of a read the second time. All these corporate self serving bullshit talks with empty pledges and broken promises. I don't know how people can trust any of it.
Hit the nail right on the head, my friend. The whole COP this is a farce propagated by bullshit artists who, unfortunately, are quite adept at fooling massive numbers of people.
Isn’t cop27 better than what is occurring in the USA tomorrow, independents voting for republicans to control America’s wallet? The rest of the world is at least trying to come up with something while Americans are voting Republican, because independents vote mostly based on how cheap gas costs to fill up the tank
And we can curse out corporations for all their ills, but we are not getting there without their help. Most major companies, including coke, are looking to cut emissions 25 to50 percent in the next decade or two - without their investment (and pressure from within - their employees) Americans will continue to elect republicans who will push for more coal, by far the biggest pollution problem, because alternatives to coal currently exist. Unlike musk and his snake oil vehicles. And of course more drill baby drill. Can’t wait for America’s tomorrow.
My reply is why Dems lose a lot of elections, a short attack is much easier to communicate than a nuanced message.
No. Both will lead to disaster. That's like asking would you rather lose an eye or a hand. Neither for me please.
Yeah, sorry, Lerx but I have to go with static111: neither choice. We don't have time to fool around with phony rhetoric and measures that are mere facades that continue to line the pockets of corporate heads and do nowhere near enough to slow climate change. COP is like saying, "OK, your house is flooded up to the rafters so we're going to lower the water a couple of inches... [and get rich while doing it]."
I know that sounds like hyperbole, or what some would call "radical" talk, or doomsday negativity, but it's not. It's just what is. The evidence is plain to see and has been mounting for years... no, decades. Scientists have been talking about global warming since the 70's, when I first heard about it. We can't afford to inch along for another fifty years.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
It's just as good of a read the second time. All these corporate self serving bullshit talks with empty pledges and broken promises. I don't know how people can trust any of it.
Hit the nail right on the head, my friend. The whole COP this is a farce propagated by bullshit artists who, unfortunately, are quite adept at fooling massive numbers of people.
Isn’t cop27 better than what is occurring in the USA tomorrow, independents voting for republicans to control America’s wallet? The rest of the world is at least trying to come up with something while Americans are voting Republican, because independents vote mostly based on how cheap gas costs to fill up the tank
And we can curse out corporations for all their ills, but we are not getting there without their help. Most major companies, including coke, are looking to cut emissions 25 to50 percent in the next decade or two - without their investment (and pressure from within - their employees) Americans will continue to elect republicans who will push for more coal, by far the biggest pollution problem, because alternatives to coal currently exist. Unlike musk and his snake oil vehicles. And of course more drill baby drill. Can’t wait for America’s tomorrow.
My reply is why Dems lose a lot of elections, a short attack is much easier to communicate than a nuanced message.
Another (yawn) Climate Change Conference next month.
This time however it's going to be different.
How can it go wrong with Coca-Cola as an official sponsor?
I mean why not have one of the planet's top polluters as a sponsor?
This company produces 200,000 plastic bottles per minute amounting to some 3 million tons of plastic every year.
The company sells over 470 billion plastic bottles a year.
The sugary poison will be flowing freely at the conference for all those thirsty "environmentalists" once again engaged in the fruitless, endless, litany of false hopes and promises that these COP conferences spew out.
I attended COP 21 back in 2015 in Paris where the fishing industry was sponsoring the Ocean forum where I spoke and where anything I had to say was most definitely not welcome.
Who next? Monsanto, Shell, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Ford?
This reminds me of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development in Brazil where Maurice Strong of Petro-Canada was an organizer and one of the sponsors was MacDonalds. Every single promise made at that meeting never materialized.
These COP meetings have achieved absolutely nothing but false promises and I speak as someone who was there in Stockholm at the very first U.N. Environmental Conference where young people were urged to get involved, but not too much involved. You can hold a sign that says, "Save the Whales" but don't go out to sea to actually save the whales.
The hurricanes keep getting stronger, the flood waters keep getting higher, the reservoirs keep getting lower, the forest fires keep getting more intense, biodiversity continues to diminish, human populations continue to rise as more and climate migrants struggle to escape the places they were born.
And the meetings continue, and more meetings and more meetings, more talks, more promises, more pledges, more photo ops for world leaders and more marketing of products that contribute to climate chaos.
Last year Boris Johnson said it was just one minute to midnight on the climate change doomsday clock. Maybe they will make progress and announce that it is now 30 seconds to midnight.
After the speech, Johnson did absolutely nothing to address the threat, nor did any other leader. Putin started a war, arms manufacturing increased fracking increased, lithium mining increased, the oil pumps kept pumping, the coal plants kept spewing and an American Senate candidate said the problem was good American air was drifting to China and dirty Chinese air was moving to America and a former President said windmills cause cancer.
We are trying to find real solutions in a swamp of stupidity where only money talks.
And the money will continue to talk, next year and the year after next year. Cop 27 next month on to COP 28, 29, ..... to COP 50. Corporations will be competing to be the official sponsor.
An industry has been created employing lobbyists, delegates, educators. publicists, advertisers, and marketeers all to promote solutions that are never realized. You have to marvel at the sheer audacity of someone successfully promoting Coke-Cola as an official sponsor for COP 27
The only thing they can agree on is that Extinction Rebellion is too extreme and we need to be more upbeat about the future because technology will save the day or we can all move to Mars.
On the bright side, delegates can visit the pyramids where they can sit in the desert sand contemplating the death of the Nile with a nice complimentary cold plastic bottle of Coca-Cola in hand.
It's just as good of a read the second time. All these corporate self serving bullshit talks with empty pledges and broken promises. I don't know how people can trust any of it.
Hit the nail right on the head, my friend. The whole COP this is a farce propagated by bullshit artists who, unfortunately, are quite adept at fooling massive numbers of people.
Isn’t cop27 better than what is occurring in the USA tomorrow, independents voting for republicans to control America’s wallet? The rest of the world is at least trying to come up with something while Americans are voting Republican, because independents vote mostly based on how cheap gas costs to fill up the tank
And we can curse out corporations for all their ills, but we are not getting there without their help. Most major companies, including coke, are looking to cut emissions 25 to50 percent in the next decade or two - without their investment (and pressure from within - their employees) Americans will continue to elect republicans who will push for more coal, by far the biggest pollution problem, because alternatives to coal currently exist. Unlike musk and his snake oil vehicles. And of course more drill baby drill. Can’t wait for America’s tomorrow.
My reply is why Dems lose a lot of elections, a short attack is much easier to communicate than a nuanced message.
No. Both will lead to disaster. That's like asking would you rather lose an eye or a hand. Neither for me please.
Yeah, sorry, Lerx but I have to go with static111: neither choice. We don't have time to fool around with phony rhetoric and measures that are mere facades that continue to line the pockets of corporate heads and do nowhere near enough to slow climate change. COP is like saying, "OK, your house is flooded up to the rafters so we're going to lower the water a couple of inches... [and get rich while doing it]."
I know that sounds like hyperbole, or what some would call "radical" talk, or doomsday negativity, but it's not. It's just what is. The evidence is plain to see and has been mounting for years... no, decades. Scientists have been talking about global warming since the 70's, when I first heard about it. We can't afford to inch along for another fifty years.
Ok bri and static, where are we in global emissions vs 15 years ago? We need allies to continue the fight, especially if Americans are only interested in voting for cheap gas and drill baby drill, as they are expected to do tomorrow. We need corporate America, especially corporations headquartered in cities, with their left leaning employees, to win this fight. Considering how vain the typical voter is, weighted by rural power the constitution allows, not sure what other allies the climate fight has.
Comments
Talk talk talk without action.
Spin the dial and see if we will have our lucky day! Land on The Guardian, BRRREEHHHH, buzzer sound, you lose. Land on NY Times, YAHOOOO! You're a winner!
World close to ‘irreversible’ climate breakdown, warn major studies
An optimistic shift
...or why you can believe everything you see and here now, can you? Now if you will excise me... I must be on... my waaaaaaaaaay...
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Exactly! The great shell game that keeps us ignorant.
. If we can’t get independents and moderates to join us, we have no chance improving our climate issues. If the gop takes over by 2024, it’s going to be full speed ahead with coal, which is a zillion times worse than nat gas, despite what the we forum link above wants us to believe.
the problem with the climate movement among liberals is that it is splintered into many different directions. If there were more focus on specific things that need to happen asap, the movement would have a chance to expand over time. Even if an anti coal platform would be painful to Dems short term, an anti coal drumbeat over time would provide focus for the movement.
Instead we get EVs promoted everywhere, solar panels on our roofs and attacks against nat gas, which short term, provide almost no benefit for the climate. Let’s end coal and replace fossil fuel power plants with wind and solar generation, that’s where the focus needs to be for the next 15 years
For 2 offspring: Parent A, Parent B and child A and child B reduce footprint to 3 (4 X 3 = 12)
For single mom, sperm donor counts a parent.
For test tube babies, well, I don't know- everyone in the lab reduces their footprint? Gotta work that one out.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2021/06/21/why-everything-they-said-about-solar---including-that-its-clean-and-cheap---was-wrong/
Some excerpts…
The problem is the sheer quantity of the hazardous waste, which far exceeds the waste produced by iPhones, laptops, and other electronics. The volume of waste expected from the solar industry, found a team of Indian researchers in 2020, was far higher than from other electronics.
“The totality of these unforeseen costs could crush industry competitiveness,” conclude the HBR authors. “If we plot future installations according to a logistic growth curve capped at 700 GW by 2050 (NREL’s estimated ceiling for the U.S. residential market) alongside the early replacement curve, we see the volume of waste surpassing that of new installations by the year 2031.”
It’s not just solar. “The same problem is looming for other renewable-energy technologies,” they write. For example, barring a major increase in processing capability, experts expect that more than 720,000 tons worth of gargantuan wind turbine blades will end up in U.S. landfills over the next 20 years. According to prevailing estimates, only five percent of electric-vehicle batteries are currently recycled
What about recycling? It’s not worth the expense, note the HBR authors. “While solar panels contain small amounts of valuable materials such as silver, they are mostly made of glass, an extremely low-value material,” they note. As a result, it costs 10 to 30 times more to recycle than to send panels to the landfill.
But the toxic nature of solar panels makes their environmental impacts worse than just the quantity of waste. Solar panels are delicate and break easily. When they do, they instantly become hazardous, and classified as such, due to their heavy metal contents. Hence, they are classified as hazardous waste. The authors note that this classification carries with it a string of expensive restrictions — hazardous waste can only be transported at designated times and via select routes, etc.”
But new research finds that solar panels in use degrade twice as fast as the industry claimed. And that report came on the heels of a separate report which found that solar panels have been suffering a rising failure rate even before entering service. “One in three manufacturers experienced safety failures relating to junction box defects, an increase from one in five last year,” noted an industry reporter. The “majority of failures were prior to testing, straight from the box.”
solar panels cannot be a primary energy source like nuclear, natural gas, or coal, for inherently physical reasons relating to the unreliable and dilute nature of their “fuel,” sunlight. Low power densities must, for inherently physical reasons, induce higher material intensity and spatial requirements, and thus higher physical costs.
The new research on the coming solar waste crisis, along with rising blackouts from renewables, reinforces the inherent flaws in solar and other forms of renewable energy. Over-relying on solar panels, and underestimating the need for nuclear and natural gas, resulted in California’s blackouts last summer. It’s now clear that China made solar appear cheap with coal, subsidies, and forced labor. And in the U.S., we pay one-quarter of solar’s costs through taxes and often much more in subsidies at the state and local level.
A harsh reality, but reality indeed- and the kind we don't hear any politician talk about*.
The government, yes the gubmint, needs to make the companies accountable and have them made w recyclable material and without toxic ones. They can do it but choose not to.
I agree that would help big-time but I would place slowing population growth and reducing consumption in developed countries just as high.
Sadly true.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/10/26/bidens-lng-export-goal-would-spell-climate-disaster-analysis-warns
Biden's LNG Export Goal 'Would Spell Climate Disaster,' Analysis Warns
JULIA CONLEY
October 26, 2022As the United Nations released its latest report showing that the continued failure of wealthy countries to immediately transition away from fossil fuels will cause catastrophic global heating, a new analysis warned the White House to scrap its plans to export billions of cubic meters of fracked gas to Europe annually until 2030.
The proposal, which the Biden administration claims "is consistent with our shared net-zero goals," would generate fossil fuel emissions equivalent to 400 million metric tons of carbon each year, according to the analysis by Food & Water Watch, which warned the plan "would spell climate disaster."
"Scaling up renewables to this level would avoid over 500 million metric tons of fossil fuels, no matter if it is replaced with solar or wind. The choice is clear."
"One year of emissions from 50 billion cubic meters (BCM) of [liquefied natural gas] LNG would be equivalent to yearly emissions from 100 coal plants," reads the group's report, titled LNG: The U.S. and E.U.'s Deal for Disaster.
LNG, which is created by cooling fracked gas to create a clear, colorless liquid, has been touted by the oil industry "as the climate-friendly alternative to Russian gas, but problems arise quickly, as a standard methane leakage rate from U.S.-sourced LNG has not been measured," Food & Water Watch adds.
The U.S. is already the world's biggest exporter of LNG, with exports averaging 0.32 BCM per day in the first half of this year. More than 70% of U.S. exports went to Europe this year, and while the Biden administration's plan has promised an extra 15 BCM of LNG to Europe this year, the current pace "will triple" that pledge, according to the report.
"The White House vision for delivering gas to Europe will serve to deliver climate chaos across the globe, at a moment when we simply cannot build new fossil fuel facilities at all," said Food & Water Watch research director Amanda Starbuck. "The White House must work with political leaders across the globe to find a safer alternative than doubling down on dirty gas."
The U.N. report released Wednesday estimated that planetary heating could reach 2.9°C by the end of the century if policymakers do not shift away from fossil fuel extraction promptly—a level of heating which could threaten hundreds of millions of people with sea level rise.
Food & Water Watch also detailed the immediate harm the Biden administration will be doing to communities near fracking sites in the U.S. if it moves ahead with the LNG exports plan.
"Communities plagued by fracking experience well documented and severe environmental impacts, which fall disproportionately on frontline populations that include rural, lower-income communities and communities of color," the group's report reads. "Those living near fracking sites are at increased risk of contracting cancer and a host of other medical disorders, with pregnant women and children at even greater risk."
...continues
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
To build out global infrastructure for emerging but not yet implementable tech? Seems like that's at minimum a 10 year wait.
So we freeze our arses off in the meantime?
Read the article and the linked report.
"One year of emissions from 50 billion cubic meters (BCM) of [liquefied natural gas] LNG would be equivalent to yearly emissions from 100 coal plants," reads the group's report, titled LNG: The U.S. and E.U.'s Deal for Disaster. "
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"Even after all of this, U.S. production will not dig Europe out of its energy crisis — gas executives have said as much. The U.S. industry is not increasing production any further, keeping supplies tight and prices high.55 This will hit the European public hardest, particularly lower-income individuals who pay disproportionately more for heating.56 Experts anticipate that food bank participation in the Netherlands will rise 15 percent in the coming months, as families are forced to choose between eating and heating their homes across the region — all while Big Oil profits.57"
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
I don’t think LNG is widely viewed as the future but it’s being used now as a short term disaster remediation. There’s no way to scale up renewable infrastructure on a short term basis caused by the Russian war. Come up with an entire brand new industry and infrastructure in a few months? Sounds like a pipe dream. Keep in mind LNG is being used because the current heat infrastructure in Europe is gas based. It’s like the existing usb-c plug to charge the Samsung phone. Anything else would be like trying to recharge an iPhone with an android charger.
….
Perhaps existing LNG infrastructure could run at 120% of normal capacity and conservation maybe can save another 20+%. Maybe a little more for both. But that’s clearly not enough. The key is that LNG can be done with infrastructure and tech that currently exists. Clean renewable heat would require solar power generation and transmission, and then homes and businesses need the electric heat pumps to turn the solar energy to heat. The infrastructure for that does not exist in big numbers in todays world.
Using the US electric transmission industry as an example, there is abundent transmission capacity from eastern Canada which needs to get to the northeast US, because there is abundent clean supply to the north and usage to the south. This is the current logistical setup
The challenge for wind and solar is its anticipated to be abundant in the central US, but is needed along the coasts where population is largest. The transmission to move the energy from production regions to usage just does not currently exist in the capacity needed
Sure we'd love for renewables to solve the Russia gas problem, but building out an entirely new infrastructure, with tech that barely exists today, is a time consuming logistics challenge. The type thats measured more in a decade or so.
..
Its like when PJ loves to play the small towns. They overwhelm existing infrastructure to handle all the big metropolitan fans traveling out to the small towns to stay at hotels.
For example, I was almost stranded in Ottawa due to a hotel error, in the midst of a thousand mile round trip journey. Driving 500 miles with no sleep? Not an issue in the PJ planning world when they set up a tour
Most days getting a hotel would be no big deal in Ottawa. When PJ is in town on a Saturday night, there were no rooms available from Ottawa to Kingston almost to Montreal.
A good analogy for the EU heating problems
If Pearl Jam wants to play small towns, why not play a smaller venue with ticket availability to accommodate the size of the town. Also make tickets available locally first. That would be the appropriate and responsible thing to do, right? Same hold true for our society in general. If we don't live sustainably, we run into problems. Simple logic.
By FABIANO MAISONNAVE and JORGE SAENZ
CARAUARI, Brazil (AP) — Even in the most biodiverse rainforest of the world, the pirarucu, also known as arapaima, stands out.
First, there is its mammoth size: It can weigh up to 200 kilos (440 pounds), by far the largest of 2,300 known fish species in the Amazon. It is found primarily in floodplain lakes across the Amazon basin, including the region of Medio Jurua.
Second, the giant fish not so long ago nearly vanished from Jurua, as vessels swept the lakes with large nets. The illegal and unsustainable fishing left river and Indigenous communities struggling to catch their staple food. And it left pirarucu designated as threatened with extinction, unless trade in the fish is closely controlled by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
But now something remarkable has happened. The fish has come back to the lakes of Medio Jurua. The story of how involves people of different backgrounds cooperating on many levels — a vision of what's possible that veterans of the Amazon say they've seen nowhere else across the vast region.
Voice of Fabiano Maisonnave: Explaining pirarucu (AP Video/Jorge Saenz and Maisonnave)
Change began in the late 1990s. With the assistance of a Dutch Catholic priest, rubber tappers organized and led a campaign to persuade the federal government to create the Medio Jurua Extractive Reserve. They proposed that river communities could take from the forest and its lakes — up to a point — and within protected areas.
It worked. Now, local communities produce açai, vegetable oils and rubber, and they leave the forest standing. Most successful of all has been the management of pirarucu.
Riverine settler communities, organized into associations, also reached agreement with neighboring Deni Indigenous people, who have suffered in the past from invasions by rubber-tappers and fishermen. Now they are part of the managed fishing of pirarucu, which improved relations between Indigenous people and non-Indigenous.
Managing the comeback has required social organization, cooperation and complex logistics. Illegal fishing has been sharply reduced. Pirarucu are flourishing.
The virtuous cycle plays out in the region of Carauari, which stretches along 650 kilometers (404 miles) of the Jurua River and is home to 35,000 people.
To see how things could have gone, look no further than the neighboring Javari Valley, where British journalist Dom Phillips and Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira were murdered last June.
The backdrop of that tragedy is a decades-old dispute between Indigenous communities and former rubber tappers who were hired by local businessmen to do illegal fishing, targeting mostly the pirarucu. Two local fishermen confessed to the crimes.
Illegal fishing is rampant in Brazil. It's the second most frequent environmental crime on protected land, after logging, according to an academic study based on official data. Brazil´s conservation agency issued 1,160 infraction notices for illegal fishing — a quarter of all infractions — over a recent five-year period.
“Javari is a portrait of what Medio Jurua was like in the 1980s,” Manoel Cunha, the main leader of the local rubber tappers, told The Associated Press during a boat trip to Sao Raimundo, his home community and one of the ones that takes part in regulated fishing. “We managed to get rid of fishing companies and invading fishermen by monitoring and management. You have been on this river for days now, and you have not seen any fishing boats except the ones from our organizations. There is no more room for them here.”
Pirarucu fishing is done once a year, around September, the period of lowest water. Fishing quotas are possible due to another remarkable characteristic of the pirarucu: It is one of the few fish species in the world that surfaces to breathe. It does that with a big splash, flashing its red tail out of the water.
A local fisherman and a researcher in the nearby Mamirarua region developed a way to take advantage of this, and count the fish since they stay underwater for no more than 20 minutes. The government now recognizes this counting method.
The survey is done once a year by certified fishermen, after taking a course. By law, only 30% of the pirarucu in a certain area can be fished the following year.
This controlled fishing has led to a surge in its population in regions where it's employed. In Sao Raimundo region, there were 1,335 pirarucus in the nearby lakes in 2011, when the managed fishing began. Last year, there were 4,092 specimens, according to their records.
In the Carauari region, the number of pirarucu spiked from 4,916, in 2011, to 46,839, ten years later.
An AP team accompanied the first of the seven days of fishing in Sao Raimundo. Picture a few dozen houses, with running water, connected by well-maintained wooden footbridges amid açai palm trees. Thirty-four families call it home. Most belong to Cunha´s extended family, whose ancestors arrived in the region from the impoverished and drought-ravaged Northeast during the rubber boom to work as tappers.
“Our pirarucu is so tasty, everybody that eats it falls in love with it and wants more," Rosilda da Cunha, a sister of Manoel who lives in Sao Raimundo, told the AP.
Pirarucu bring money into the community, she said. This year, the goal is to buy a solar panel system to replace the diesel-fueled generator. Another share of the money goes to the community members who participate in the fishing. Women's and men's salaries are equal.
To catch pirarucu, fishermen use special, stronger nets they weave themselves. The holes are large enough to allow smaller specimens to go through, as taking fish under five feet is prohibited.
When the fishers catch one, they haul in the net and club the fish in the head. Then they put it in their small boat. When it´s very heavy, two or three men are required to do the job.
The pirarucus are then taken from the lakes to a large boat by the Jurua River. There they are gutted, a task that is mostly done by women, and put on ice. All the production is bought by the Association of Rural Producers of Carauari, known as Asproc, the region´s umbrella organization, so the fishers are never at the mercy of middlemen.
Founded by rubber tappers who wanted to liberate themselves from slave-like labor conditions, Asproc has grown to be one of the most important grassroots entities in the entire Amazon. It runs programs on everything from sanitation, to community markets to higher education, innovating along the way. It now sells pirarucu to Brazil´s main cities including Sao Paulo and Brasília, a complex endeavor that involves several days of transport by boat and road and usually takes more than two weeks.
Asproc´s success has attracted several partnerships. One is counterintuitive — the United States Forest Service, which supported the creation of a brand, the Gosto da Amazônia (Amazon Taste), that promotes the pirarucu nationwide, and the Agency for International Development (USAID), which helped to finance a warehouse for processing fish in Carauari city, where the pirarucu is cut, frozen and packaged.
“This project is unique as it requires a strong governance structure,” Ted Gehr, USAID mission director in Brazil, told the AP during his first visit to the Sao Raimundo community. “Everybody is in agreement that they may have to sacrifice and not be able to fish all of the pirarucu that are available but knowing that they’ll reproduce more, and that in the long run they will be more valuable."
The Medio Jurua region is blessed with remoteness. It has no access by road. So far it is free from the deforestation and fire that have been devastating elsewhere in the Amazon. But the smoke that has left the skies grayish in September is a reminder that the destruction is not far away. The challenge is to be a strong organization and economy to stave off future threats, says Cunha.
“Had we not organized ourselves through fishing management to protect our environments and take our fish, instead of others taking them from us, we could be in the same situation as our colleagues from Javari,” says Cunha, who is the head of the Medio Jurua Extractive Reserve, a position usually held by government officials. “Had they organized themselves earlier, they could have saved the lives of those two comrades.”
____
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
ED DAVEY
LONDON (AP) — In the Putumayo region of the Colombian Amazon, Segundo Meneses' daily routine took him to the Chufiya river, its banks verdant and waters alive with catfish and piranha. On one morning seven years ago, he noticed a dark film lapping the shore. Where the river turned a bend, it turned to black. It was an oil slick that he says went on to sicken his young family and poison their cows and pigs.
The British law firm Leigh Day is now suing Amerisur, the oil company operating in the region, on behalf of 171 Putumayo farmers, including Meneses. That spill was not the only complication with this particular oil operation. Nearby Siona Indigenous people say they reject the oil pumping and will fight it. This region is also awash in coca production and former rebel groups dispute drug territory, sometimes disrupting the flow of oil. Then there are reports by United Nations rapporteurs and an interfaith non-profit group that say the oil company, Amerisur Resources PLC, may have worked with rebels to pressure the Siona and local farmers to cease their opposition in order to keep oil flowing.
Yet none of this seemed to deter an $900 million oil and gas firm based in Chile named GeoPark Ltd. from buying Amerisur two years ago. GeoPark successfully lined up banks to help it obtain the Putumayo oilfields, indicating that even with climate changes hitting wide areas of the globe, backing for the activities that cause it is still available. Demand for crude oil continues to rise, not fall, underscoring the lure for oil companies and banks to keep operating as they have for decades.
“If banks help finance a company like GeoPark, it seems there is nothing they will refuse to touch,” said Maaike Beenes, banks and climate lead at the non-profit BankTrack, an environmental advocacy group based in the Netherlands. This deal, she said, raises numerous red flags because of Amerisur's legacy, "from doing business in a conflict zone to fossil fuel expansion in sensitive ecosystems of the Amazon, to a history of violations of Indigenous peoples’ rights.”
The way GeoPark bought all of British-based Amerisur in January 2020, absorbing the company and keeping its brand, is a window into how some banks support fossil fuel projects even when they appear to go against their own policies.
Citibank and Itaú Unibanco offered GeoPark a bridge loan. The company then looked to banks for help issuing $350 million worth of bonds to pay for the purchase, Bloomberg data and public statements show. Brazilian Itaú Unibanco and Citibank served as “bookrunners” on the bonds, and the Bank of New York Mellon agreed to facilitate payments on them. Bookrunners advertise bonds, coordinate orders and generally use their reputation to lend confidence on bond offers.
The deal enabled GeoPark to obtain Amerisur's main asset: 11 oilfields strung across the highly biodiverse Putumayo basin. They now comprise almost a third of GeoPark's hydrocarbon fields, the rest dotted across Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru.
The next year, in 2021, U.S. and European financial institutions helped GeoPark restructure its debt, making more money available to the company. Bank of America, Credit Suisse and JPMorgan advised on issuing another $150 million in bonds, GeoPark press releases show.
Even being the client of such important banks lent GeoPark credibility, said former bond trader Jo Richardson of the Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute, who analyzed data and documents from the deal.
A SULLIED RIVER
In a filing with the British High Court, Segundo Meneses called the Chufiya river “an important source of food for my family and the whole community.”
But the river was changed by events that day. According to court documents, an armed group attacked five Amerisur oil tanker trucks and forced the drivers to empty their loads of crude oil into a wetland, where it flowed into the Agua Negra tributary, and from there into the Chufiya and beyond.
For the Colombian oil industry, rebel attacks on oil infrastructure have been a plague for decades. But the farmers argue this attack was foreseeable, given ongoing conflict in the area. For a long time afterwards, the cassava and plantain farmers say, their water was contaminated.
Fishing became impossible, said Meneses, the edible fish gone.
“I caught a 15-kilo fish (33 lbs.) and it tasted like oil, and I couldn’t eat it,” he said in an affidavit.
In the dry season, the family had no choice but to drink from and wash in the river, which gave them diarrhea, rashes and stomach aches, he said.
“For us water is life,” Meneses continued. “Maybe I will die tomorrow but my children will still live here and I do not want them to live in an area with such polluted water.”
GeoPark’s spokesperson said the company has caused no contamination, maintains the highest standards to protect the environment, and is committed to compensation for any negative impacts. Amerisur, now Amerisur Resources Ltd, cleaned up the spilled oil, the spokesperson said, and would defend itself in the courts. Regarding liability for past acts, she said, they are “questions of law and fact on a case-by-case basis.”
OIL IN A CONFLICT ZONE
For critics, the Amerisur assets should never have found a buyer, or financing. There were numerous red flags for banks considering helping with this oil deal, they say. Months before the first bond issuance, the Siona of the Buenavista reservation told GeoPark in a public statement they would not allow oil production or “extractive operations in our territory.” They said Amerisur had already tried to take their natural resources through “illegal and rigged action.” The tribe said it would protect its territory from “grave risks due to toxic wastes,” and “impacts on our spiritual practices.”
Moira Birss, director for climate and finance at the non-profit advocacy group Amazon Watch said GeoPark is "running enormous political, legal, reputational, climate, and social risks.”
Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognizes the Siona as at risk of extermination. Also before the bond deal, a 2019 ruling found Amerisur left explosives on Siona land during seismic studies. The company was ordered to cease this activity. In a third, ongoing case, the Buenavista Siona, who say their lands are overlapped by two GeoPark oilfields, are seeking 52,000 hectares (128,000 acres) of disputed territory there to be added to their reservation.
GeoPark denied in an email it is working in the Siona reservation or the additional land sought by them. Relationships with Indigenous people are based on “dialogue, respect and building trust,” the company said. The company says in 2021 it requested Colombia to cancel the concession to the oilfield the Siona say overlaps their land, and is waiting for this to happen.
PARAMILITARIES IN THE AREA
The Putumayo region is also a hotbed of coca cultivation and cocaine trafficking. Splinter groups of former FARC rebels fight each other for control of the trade. One faction, the Border Command, is listed with the U.S. Treasury Department as a terrorist organization. In December 2020, before the second bond deal, a respected Colombian human rights NGO's report made a strong claim. The Interfaith Justice and Peace Commission alleged the Border Command was collaborating with Amerisur to protect its oil operations.
Displaced farmers had told the commission they were ordered by the rebels not to oppose Amerisur’s exploration, one rebel reportedly saying, “We have negotiated with the company and will assure the operation.”
Five United Nations special rapporteurs for human rights also wrote to the chief of the U.N. Development Programme, Achim Steiner, warning: “Alleged links exist between the company (Amerisur) and the paramilitaries present in the area, which have been denounced by the Siona Peoples before the Constitutional Court.”
The U.N. rapporteurs wrote: “Economic actors have allied with irregular armed actors to generate, within the Indigenous communities, acts of violence that ... displace the Indigenous people from their ancestral territories, thus clearing the way for ... these projects.”
Colombian investigative news outlet Cuestión Pública, working with the news organization Mongabay, said two independent sources said paramilitaries had forced a farming community to attend meetings where they were ordered not to obstruct Amerisur and should accept any offers it makes. Two other independent sources confirmed an alliance between Amerisur and the rebel group, their report said.
And the Ombudsman’s Office of Colombia, the country's human rights agency, published a risk alert on its website saying community complaints have been received about pressure exerted by “illegal armed actors” to allow oil extraction. Amerisur was not named in that alert. But the report did note Amerisur is the one of the two largest operators in the area of Putumayo.
GeoPark rejected any allegation of collaboration with Border Command as “100% false.”
“GeoPark has never had any relationship with illegal armed groups and demands the same of its employees and the entire supply chain,” a spokesperson said.
BANK SUPPORT
The backing by the banks buoyed GeoPark. In April 2021, James F. Park, then CEO, said in a press release the deal “demonstrates the support and credibility we have earned in international capital markets.” This puts the company in a “stronger, more flexible, less risky and less costly position,” he said.
Citibank, Itaú Unibanco, and the Bank of New York Mellon all said environmental issues were of great importance to them. BNY Mellon said it provided no direct financing or loans. Citibank and Itaú also emphasized they seriously consider social risks and conduct due diligence. Citi said it is strengthening these policies. JPMorgan said it reviews all sensitive deals with clients.
Bank of America and Credit Suisse declined to comment.
Meanwhile, in the rainforest, oil pumping continues. Meneses and his fellow farmers hope for a judgement before Christmas; British courts have ordered GeoPark to set aside 3.2 million pounds (U.S. $3.8 million) to pay if the farmers win.
______
Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
gift article…
Captain Paul Watson
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Hit the nail right on the head, my friend. The whole COP this is a farce propagated by bullshit artists who, unfortunately, are quite adept at fooling massive numbers of people.
And we can curse out corporations for all their ills, but we are not getting there without their help. Most major companies, including coke, are looking to cut emissions 25 to50 percent in the next decade or two - without their investment (and pressure from within - their employees) Americans will continue to elect republicans who will push for more coal, by far the biggest pollution problem, because alternatives to coal currently exist. Unlike musk and his snake oil vehicles. And of course more drill baby drill. Can’t wait for America’s tomorrow.
My reply is why Dems lose a lot of elections, a short attack is much easier to communicate than a nuanced message.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden