Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
I think it got locked because an accusation was made about reading skills, not the topic? It’s difficult to know exactly why sometimes.
I was on the climate subreddit recently. A commenter claimed that China had its act together because they invested in high speed rails and the US doesn’t. That’s a stunning comment. China uses more coal than the rest of the world COMBINED, yet they have their act together . Coal is the absolute worst by far and can be and needs to be ended asap. Yet in America, it will not happen anytime soon.
That’s the problem with gathering enough political power to improve the climate situation. 45% of Americans are about to vote for a pro coal party**, and the rest of the country, even those supporting climate improvement, are split in so many differing directions, the movement has little political power. So un metaphorically we are walking full speed into a brick…house.
** come to think of it, aren’t there a bunch of moderates who no longer post on AMT? I recall a few of them didnt like the idea of Biden as president, probably due to his age. That’s part of the problem in the USA. Each party’s missions are lost to independents. They equate a presidents age as more important than preserving the climate. As well as tax cuts, and on and on.
I think it has less to do with political parties and factions than humans being a power greedy bunch especially western society. When was the last time most people rode a bike or walked to the grocery store or took public transport? Who actually separates their compost and has a compost pile in the back yard if their municipality doesn't offer a compost program? Who separates their recycling and takes it to a facility if their municipality doesn't offer a recycling service? Who pays a little bit more for something that will last longer than five years before planned obsolescence kicks in and they have to buy another widget to keep the economy afloat? The problem is deeper than coal, it's lifestyle. Coal is the big boogey man that it feels good to rail against, the Goliath that if it was slain would make us all ok again, unfortunately that is a fantasy. If we stopped coal tomorrow we would still have horrible environmental consequences because people wouldn't be changing their habits and behaviors.
If we decided to continue as a disposable society and only change our methods of power generation we will just shift environmental impacts elsewhere. the real answer is to stop being so selfish and cheap.
There is also the problem of the power consumption that the world now feels entitled to.
Where would we get the power for the endless devices and air-conditioning everyone has grown accustomed to using without a thought? Nuclear? would take a few years to ramp up to. level to meet current needs also has it's own environmental concerns. solar, wind? They have problems of their own in terms of lifespan of parts and disturbing the ecosystems where they can be installed for maximum efficiency, and would also require a several years long infrastructure project. If we just cut coal and the world relied on what "green" energy we have, there would be riots. Food would spoil, bank transactions wouldn't go through etc. It sucks but it is reality.
Personally I think we should have a short term solution of ramping up a bunch of nuclear facilities and heavily investing in Geothermal, tidal, wind and solar research to figure out a way to provide enough power to meet the needs of the world. No one is going to give up their devices , ring door bell cams, Server Farms, bit coin mines, Alexas, air-conditioning etc in the name of saving the planet even if the world is on fire. We are too selfish. Electric cars won't save us no matter how smug people who buy them feel about their ability to do just thatt. Sadly it will take a world changing disaster for anything to get traction and by then it will be too late.
That's why I try to do what I can and have as much fun as possible while car surfing at high speed towards this brick wall. I believe society as we know it is probably doomed. I'm also not sure that that is a bad thing, it is what got us here after all.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
That's actually easy. All of Hawaii used to have an abundance of farmland. The price of sugar cane have dropped significantly from cheaper prices in other countries. Sugar cane fields have given way to housing developments.
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
That's actually easy. All of Hawaii used to have an abundance of farmland. The price of sugar cane have dropped significantly from cheaper prices in other countries. Sugar cane fields have given way to housing developments.
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
So that is how there is hardly any farmland now.
But 40% of the land is zoned agricultural and the number of acres being farmed increased between 2015 to 2020. Are you saying the development happened in the past 3 years? I’m not sure they grew vegetables, as we think of vegetables, there to begin with. More like vegetables native to the land and people, not European/North American veggies. As for sugar cane, being an island, it became unprofitable to farm but that doesn’t necessarily mean those fields became housing lots.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
That's actually easy. All of Hawaii used to have an abundance of farmland. The price of sugar cane have dropped significantly from cheaper prices in other countries. Sugar cane fields have given way to housing developments.
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
So that is how there is hardly any farmland now.
But 40% of the land is zoned agricultural and the number of acres being farmed increased between 2015 to 2020. Are you saying the development happened in the past 3 years? I’m not sure they grew vegetables, as we think of vegetables, there to begin with. More like vegetables native to the land and people, not European/North American veggies. As for sugar cane, being an island, it became unprofitable to farm but that doesn’t necessarily mean those fields became housing lots.
Not sure how you can say “hardly any farming.”
The amount of farms increased like 1% in that time. It did increase but nothing significant. It was a switch from cane to other things If you take what they were growing prior to sugar cane it's miniscule.
40% might be zoned agriculture but Maui has 460,000 acres and 120,000 are farmed which is 25%. If it is zoned for 40% then 15 % of that is grass and weeds.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
That's actually easy. All of Hawaii used to have an abundance of farmland. The price of sugar cane have dropped significantly from cheaper prices in other countries. Sugar cane fields have given way to housing developments.
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
So that is how there is hardly any farmland now.
But 40% of the land is zoned agricultural and the number of acres being farmed increased between 2015 to 2020. Are you saying the development happened in the past 3 years? I’m not sure they grew vegetables, as we think of vegetables, there to begin with. More like vegetables native to the land and people, not European/North American veggies. As for sugar cane, being an island, it became unprofitable to farm but that doesn’t necessarily mean those fields became housing lots.
Not sure how you can say “hardly any farming.”
The amount of farms increased like 1% in that time. It did increase but nothing significant. It was a switch from cane to other things If you take what they were growing prior to sugar cane it's miniscule.
40% might be zoned agriculture but Maui has 460,000 acres and 120,000 are farmed which is 25%. If it is zoned for 40% then 15 % of that is grass and weeds.
Was the 40% ever fully farmed? Has the 15%, or some portion, been developed? I don’t ever recall, in my lifetime, Hawaii having forest fires. I’m not convinced development or that “hardly any farms” is the cause or reason for what just happened. Exacerbate the situation, sure.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
That's actually easy. All of Hawaii used to have an abundance of farmland. The price of sugar cane have dropped significantly from cheaper prices in other countries. Sugar cane fields have given way to housing developments.
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
So that is how there is hardly any farmland now.
But 40% of the land is zoned agricultural and the number of acres being farmed increased between 2015 to 2020. Are you saying the development happened in the past 3 years? I’m not sure they grew vegetables, as we think of vegetables, there to begin with. More like vegetables native to the land and people, not European/North American veggies. As for sugar cane, being an island, it became unprofitable to farm but that doesn’t necessarily mean those fields became housing lots.
Not sure how you can say “hardly any farming.”
The amount of farms increased like 1% in that time. It did increase but nothing significant. It was a switch from cane to other things If you take what they were growing prior to sugar cane it's miniscule.
40% might be zoned agriculture but Maui has 460,000 acres and 120,000 are farmed which is 25%. If it is zoned for 40% then 15 % of that is grass and weeds.
Was the 40% ever fully farmed? Has the 15%, or some portion, been developed? I don’t ever recall, in my lifetime, Hawaii having forest fires. I’m not convinced development or that “hardly any farms” is the cause or reason for what just happened. Exacerbate the situation, sure.
I could have worded it better.
I was reading that foreign grass was a culprit of the spread too. Initially I read grass then another article pointed out to foreign grass.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
That's actually easy. All of Hawaii used to have an abundance of farmland. The price of sugar cane have dropped significantly from cheaper prices in other countries. Sugar cane fields have given way to housing developments.
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
So that is how there is hardly any farmland now.
But 40% of the land is zoned agricultural and the number of acres being farmed increased between 2015 to 2020. Are you saying the development happened in the past 3 years? I’m not sure they grew vegetables, as we think of vegetables, there to begin with. More like vegetables native to the land and people, not European/North American veggies. As for sugar cane, being an island, it became unprofitable to farm but that doesn’t necessarily mean those fields became housing lots.
Not sure how you can say “hardly any farming.”
The amount of farms increased like 1% in that time. It did increase but nothing significant. It was a switch from cane to other things If you take what they were growing prior to sugar cane it's miniscule.
40% might be zoned agriculture but Maui has 460,000 acres and 120,000 are farmed which is 25%. If it is zoned for 40% then 15 % of that is grass and weeds.
Was the 40% ever fully farmed? Has the 15%, or some portion, been developed? I don’t ever recall, in my lifetime, Hawaii having forest fires. I’m not convinced development or that “hardly any farms” is the cause or reason for what just happened. Exacerbate the situation, sure.
I could have worded it better.
I was reading that foreign grass was a culprit of the spread too. Initially I read grass then another article pointed out to foreign grass.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
I think it got locked because an accusation was made about reading skills, not the topic? It’s difficult to know exactly why sometimes.
I was on the climate subreddit recently. A commenter claimed that China had its act together because they invested in high speed rails and the US doesn’t. That’s a stunning comment. China uses more coal than the rest of the world COMBINED, yet they have their act together . Coal is the absolute worst by far and can be and needs to be ended asap. Yet in America, it will not happen anytime soon.
That’s the problem with gathering enough political power to improve the climate situation. 45% of Americans are about to vote for a pro coal party**, and the rest of the country, even those supporting climate improvement, are split in so many differing directions, the movement has little political power. So un metaphorically we are walking full speed into a brick…house.
** come to think of it, aren’t there a bunch of moderates who no longer post on AMT? I recall a few of them didnt like the idea of Biden as president, probably due to his age. That’s part of the problem in the USA. Each party’s missions are lost to independents. They equate a presidents age as more important than preserving the climate. As well as tax cuts, and on and on.
I think it has less to do with political parties and factions than humans being a power greedy bunch especially western society. When was the last time most people rode a bike or walked to the grocery store or took public transport? Who actually separates their compost and has a compost pile in the back yard if their municipality doesn't offer a compost program? Who separates their recycling and takes it to a facility if their municipality doesn't offer a recycling service? Who pays a little bit more for something that will last longer than five years before planned obsolescence kicks in and they have to buy another widget to keep the economy afloat? The problem is deeper than coal, it's lifestyle. Coal is the big boogey man that it feels good to rail against, the Goliath that if it was slain would make us all ok again, unfortunately that is a fantasy. If we stopped coal tomorrow we would still have horrible environmental consequences because people wouldn't be changing their habits and behaviors.
If we decided to continue as a disposable society and only change our methods of power generation we will just shift environmental impacts elsewhere. the real answer is to stop being so selfish and cheap.
There is also the problem of the power consumption that the world now feels entitled to.
Where would we get the power for the endless devices and air-conditioning everyone has grown accustomed to using without a thought? Nuclear? would take a few years to ramp up to. level to meet current needs also has it's own environmental concerns. solar, wind? They have problems of their own in terms of lifespan of parts and disturbing the ecosystems where they can be installed for maximum efficiency, and would also require a several years long infrastructure project. If we just cut coal and the world relied on what "green" energy we have, there would be riots. Food would spoil, bank transactions wouldn't go through etc. It sucks but it is reality.
Personally I think we should have a short term solution of ramping up a bunch of nuclear facilities and heavily investing in Geothermal, tidal, wind and solar research to figure out a way to provide enough power to meet the needs of the world. No one is going to give up their devices , ring door bell cams, Server Farms, bit coin mines, Alexas, air-conditioning etc in the name of saving the planet even if the world is on fire. We are too selfish. Electric cars won't save us no matter how smug people who buy them feel about their ability to do just thatt. Sadly it will take a world changing disaster for anything to get traction and by then it will be too late.
That's why I try to do what I can and have as much fun as possible while car surfing at high speed towards this brick wall. I believe society as we know it is probably doomed. I'm also not sure that that is a bad thing, it is what got us here after all.
"Selfish and cheap" are definitely major factors that have led us to the brink. To be fair, I think we can say that a lot of what has made us selfish- in developed and first world countries anyway- is learned behavior. Most of us grew up surrounded by a lot of "stuff". When I was a kid, my family was on the very low end of middle class, but we were not poor and my folks had middle class aspirations. Most of us grew up with daily rations of advertising us telling us about all the things we "need". Having one's own vehicle was a given. I grew up in a family that had one car, one TV, and one phone. Today, every member of a family grows up with the assumption that as soon as possible, each person will have their own vehicle, phone, television, and computer, and enough clothes in their closet to wear something different every day. We are brought up to be conditioned to accept all of this as normal when it is actually quite absurd.
And then, as you so well put it, we are also conditioned to accept the notion that cheaper is better because you can always buy a new one. We don't demand durability in our products. We might complain a little about things breaking down, but how often do people write to companies and tell them their products are shit? How often does the average person stop to assess what they are purchasing and consider that a better made, more expensive product and work better, last longer, consume fewer resources, and, in the long run, cost them less money? I don't believe the average person thinks about durability. And the irony is that buying cheap crap only serves to diminish the health of our planet and costs us more money in the long run. If we think about it, being cheap is also absurd and self-defeating.
“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, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
That's actually easy. All of Hawaii used to have an abundance of farmland. The price of sugar cane have dropped significantly from cheaper prices in other countries. Sugar cane fields have given way to housing developments.
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
So that is how there is hardly any farmland now.
But 40% of the land is zoned agricultural and the number of acres being farmed increased between 2015 to 2020. Are you saying the development happened in the past 3 years? I’m not sure they grew vegetables, as we think of vegetables, there to begin with. More like vegetables native to the land and people, not European/North American veggies. As for sugar cane, being an island, it became unprofitable to farm but that doesn’t necessarily mean those fields became housing lots.
Not sure how you can say “hardly any farming.”
The amount of farms increased like 1% in that time. It did increase but nothing significant. It was a switch from cane to other things If you take what they were growing prior to sugar cane it's miniscule.
40% might be zoned agriculture but Maui has 460,000 acres and 120,000 are farmed which is 25%. If it is zoned for 40% then 15 % of that is grass and weeds.
Was the 40% ever fully farmed? Has the 15%, or some portion, been developed? I don’t ever recall, in my lifetime, Hawaii having forest fires. I’m not convinced development or that “hardly any farms” is the cause or reason for what just happened. Exacerbate the situation, sure.
I could have worded it better.
I was reading that foreign grass was a culprit of the spread too. Initially I read grass then another article pointed out to foreign grass.
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
Reading up on that when there was sugar cane and pineapples it was never a problem. Now those farms are gone and the grass has led to this.
Global warming or over development? Or just misuse of land. I think over development and land abuse gets overlooked sometimes in the fervor to tie everything to global warming.
It's a combination of the 3.
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Hardly any farmland? Because of development? Oprah bought a farm for crying out loud. Can you explain how there’s “hardly any farmland?”
That's actually easy. All of Hawaii used to have an abundance of farmland. The price of sugar cane have dropped significantly from cheaper prices in other countries. Sugar cane fields have given way to housing developments.
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
So that is how there is hardly any farmland now.
But 40% of the land is zoned agricultural and the number of acres being farmed increased between 2015 to 2020. Are you saying the development happened in the past 3 years? I’m not sure they grew vegetables, as we think of vegetables, there to begin with. More like vegetables native to the land and people, not European/North American veggies. As for sugar cane, being an island, it became unprofitable to farm but that doesn’t necessarily mean those fields became housing lots.
Not sure how you can say “hardly any farming.”
The amount of farms increased like 1% in that time. It did increase but nothing significant. It was a switch from cane to other things If you take what they were growing prior to sugar cane it's miniscule.
40% might be zoned agriculture but Maui has 460,000 acres and 120,000 are farmed which is 25%. If it is zoned for 40% then 15 % of that is grass and weeds.
Was the 40% ever fully farmed? Has the 15%, or some portion, been developed? I don’t ever recall, in my lifetime, Hawaii having forest fires. I’m not convinced development or that “hardly any farms” is the cause or reason for what just happened. Exacerbate the situation, sure.
I could have worded it better.
I was reading that foreign grass was a culprit of the spread too. Initially I read grass then another article pointed out to foreign grass.
Scientists detect sign that a crucial ocean current is near collapse
The Atlantic Ocean’s sensitive circulation system has become slower and less resilient, according to a new analysis of 150 years of temperature data — raising the possibility that this crucial element of the climate system could collapse within the next few decades.
Scientists have long seen the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, as one of the planet’s most vulnerable “tipping elements” — meaning the system could undergo an abrupt and irreversible change, with dramatic consequences for the rest of the globe. Under Earth’s current climate, this aquatic conveyor belt transports warm, salty water from the tropics to the North Atlantic, and then sends colder water back south along the ocean floor. But as rising global temperatures melt Arctic ice, the resulting influx of cold freshwater has thrown a wrench in the system — and could shut it down entirely.
The study published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communicationssuggests that continued warming will push the AMOC over its “tipping point” around the middle of this century. The shift would be as abrupt and irreversible as turning off a light switch, and it could lead to dramatic changes in weather on either side of the Atlantic.
“This is a really worrying result,” said Peter Ditlevsen, a climate physicist at the University of Copenhagen and lead author of the new study. “This is really showing we need a hard foot on the brake” of greenhouse gas emissions.
Ditlevsen’s analysis is at odds with the most recent report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which drew on multiple climate models and concluded with “medium confidence” that the AMOC will not fully collapse this century.
Other experts on the AMOC also cautioned that because the new study doesn’t present new observations of the entire ocean system — instead, it is extrapolating about the future based on past data from a limited region of the Atlantic — its conclusions should be taken with a grain of salt.
The qualitative statement that AMOC has been losing stability in the last century remains true even taking all uncertainties into account,” said Niklas Boers, a scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “But the uncertainties are too high for a reliable estimate of the time of AMOC tipping.”
The study adds to a growing body of evidence that this crucial ocean system is in peril. Since 2004, observations from a network of ocean buoys has shown the AMOC getting weaker — though the limited time frame of that data set makes it hard to establish a trend. Scientists have also analyzed multiple “proxy” indicators of the current’s strength, including microscopic organisms and tiny sediments from the seafloor, to show the system is in its weakest state in more than 1,000 years.
For their analysis, Peter Ditlevsen and his colleague Susanne Ditlevsen (who is Peter’s sister) examined records of sea surface temperatures going back to 1870. In recent years, they found, temperatures in the northernmost waters of the Atlantic have undergone bigger fluctuations and taken longer to return to normal. These are “early warning signals” that the AMOC is becoming critically unstable, the scientists said — like the increasingly wild wobbles before a tower of Jenga blocks starts to fall.
Susanne Ditlevsen, a statistician at the University of Copenhagen, then developed an advanced mathematical model to predict how much more wobbling the AMOC system can handle. The results suggest that the AMOC could collapse any time between now and 2095, and as early as 2025, the authors said.
The consequences would not be nearly as dire as they appear in the 2004 sci-fi film “The Day After Tomorrow,” in which a sudden shutdown of the current causes a flash freeze across the Northern Hemisphere. But it could lead to a drop in temperatures in northern Europe and elevated warming in the tropics, as well as stronger storms on the East Coast of North America, Peter Ditlevsen said.
Marilena Oltmanns, an oceanographer at the National Oceanography Center in Britain, noted in a statement that the temperatures in the North Atlantic are “only one part of a highly complex, dynamical system.” Though her own research on marine physics supports the Ditlevsens’ conclusion that this particular region could reach a tipping point this century, she is wary of linking that transition to a full-scale change in Atlantic Ocean circulation.
Yet the dangers of even a partial AMOC shutdown mean any indicators of instability are worth investigating, said Stefan Rahmstorf, another oceanographer at the Potsdam Institute who was not involved in the new study.
“As always in science, a single study provides limited evidence, but when multiple approaches lead to similar conclusions this must be taken very seriously,” he said. “The scientific evidence now is that we can’t even rule out crossing a tipping point already in the next decade or two.”
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
I think it got locked because an accusation was made about reading skills, not the topic? It’s difficult to know exactly why sometimes.
I was on the climate subreddit recently. A commenter claimed that China had its act together because they invested in high speed rails and the US doesn’t. That’s a stunning comment. China uses more coal than the rest of the world COMBINED, yet they have their act together . Coal is the absolute worst by far and can be and needs to be ended asap. Yet in America, it will not happen anytime soon.
That’s the problem with gathering enough political power to improve the climate situation. 45% of Americans are about to vote for a pro coal party**, and the rest of the country, even those supporting climate improvement, are split in so many differing directions, the movement has little political power. So un metaphorically we are walking full speed into a brick…house.
** come to think of it, aren’t there a bunch of moderates who no longer post on AMT? I recall a few of them didnt like the idea of Biden as president, probably due to his age. That’s part of the problem in the USA. Each party’s missions are lost to independents. They equate a presidents age as more important than preserving the climate. As well as tax cuts, and on and on.
I think it has less to do with political parties and factions than humans being a power greedy bunch especially western society. When was the last time most people rode a bike or walked to the grocery store or took public transport? Who actually separates their compost and has a compost pile in the back yard if their municipality doesn't offer a compost program? Who separates their recycling and takes it to a facility if their municipality doesn't offer a recycling service? Who pays a little bit more for something that will last longer than five years before planned obsolescence kicks in and they have to buy another widget to keep the economy afloat? The problem is deeper than coal, it's lifestyle. Coal is the big boogey man that it feels good to rail against, the Goliath that if it was slain would make us all ok again, unfortunately that is a fantasy. If we stopped coal tomorrow we would still have horrible environmental consequences because people wouldn't be changing their habits and behaviors.
If we decided to continue as a disposable society and only change our methods of power generation we will just shift environmental impacts elsewhere. the real answer is to stop being so selfish and cheap.
There is also the problem of the power consumption that the world now feels entitled to.
Where would we get the power for the endless devices and air-conditioning everyone has grown accustomed to using without a thought? Nuclear? would take a few years to ramp up to. level to meet current needs also has it's own environmental concerns. solar, wind? They have problems of their own in terms of lifespan of parts and disturbing the ecosystems where they can be installed for maximum efficiency, and would also require a several years long infrastructure project. If we just cut coal and the world relied on what "green" energy we have, there would be riots. Food would spoil, bank transactions wouldn't go through etc. It sucks but it is reality.
Personally I think we should have a short term solution of ramping up a bunch of nuclear facilities and heavily investing in Geothermal, tidal, wind and solar research to figure out a way to provide enough power to meet the needs of the world. No one is going to give up their devices , ring door bell cams, Server Farms, bit coin mines, Alexas, air-conditioning etc in the name of saving the planet even if the world is on fire. We are too selfish. Electric cars won't save us no matter how smug people who buy them feel about their ability to do just thatt. Sadly it will take a world changing disaster for anything to get traction and by then it will be too late.
That's why I try to do what I can and have as much fun as possible while car surfing at high speed towards this brick wall. I believe society as we know it is probably doomed. I'm also not sure that that is a bad thing, it is what got us here after all.
It’s already too late.
Yep.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, the Maui/Lahaina thread got derailed and lock quicker than a wildfire on dry land. But in the bigger picture, that terribly sad even is yet another reflection of what is happening with climate change. During as recently as from the 70s on, a good friend of ours lived on and spent a lot of time on Maui and "The Big Island" (called Hawaii) and she is devastated by what is happening there. She says wildfires of the nature we are seeing were unheard of until recent times and never as bad as today.
And look at Canada- over 27 million acres have burned this year and fire season is far from over. Think about that- 27+ million acres.
What is most frustrating is that just yesterday I was thinking about how I remember that forty years ago I read something someone (I think it was Doug Peacock) had said about
environmental conditions that metaphorically we were like a speeding car about to
smash into a brick wall and nobody was doing a damn thing to stop it. At the time, I
had been somewhat aware of the issues evolving, but reading that article was when I
started to ramp up my involvement in environmental activism and became
more aware of my own impact on the planet.
And now we're hitting that
brick wall and a lot of people are saying, "Oh my GOD, what happened?"
40 years ago, and too many people just slept through our many
years of opportunity and now look at what is happening. It's pathetic.
I think it got locked because an accusation was made about reading skills, not the topic? It’s difficult to know exactly why sometimes.
I was on the climate subreddit recently. A commenter claimed that China had its act together because they invested in high speed rails and the US doesn’t. That’s a stunning comment. China uses more coal than the rest of the world COMBINED, yet they have their act together . Coal is the absolute worst by far and can be and needs to be ended asap. Yet in America, it will not happen anytime soon.
That’s the problem with gathering enough political power to improve the climate situation. 45% of Americans are about to vote for a pro coal party**, and the rest of the country, even those supporting climate improvement, are split in so many differing directions, the movement has little political power. So un metaphorically we are walking full speed into a brick…house.
** come to think of it, aren’t there a bunch of moderates who no longer post on AMT? I recall a few of them didnt like the idea of Biden as president, probably due to his age. That’s part of the problem in the USA. Each party’s missions are lost to independents. They equate a presidents age as more important than preserving the climate. As well as tax cuts, and on and on.
I think it has less to do with political parties and factions than humans being a power greedy bunch especially western society. When was the last time most people rode a bike or walked to the grocery store or took public transport? Who actually separates their compost and has a compost pile in the back yard if their municipality doesn't offer a compost program? Who separates their recycling and takes it to a facility if their municipality doesn't offer a recycling service? Who pays a little bit more for something that will last longer than five years before planned obsolescence kicks in and they have to buy another widget to keep the economy afloat? The problem is deeper than coal, it's lifestyle. Coal is the big boogey man that it feels good to rail against, the Goliath that if it was slain would make us all ok again, unfortunately that is a fantasy. If we stopped coal tomorrow we would still have horrible environmental consequences because people wouldn't be changing their habits and behaviors.
If we decided to continue as a disposable society and only change our methods of power generation we will just shift environmental impacts elsewhere. the real answer is to stop being so selfish and cheap.
There is also the problem of the power consumption that the world now feels entitled to.
Where would we get the power for the endless devices and air-conditioning everyone has grown accustomed to using without a thought? Nuclear? would take a few years to ramp up to. level to meet current needs also has it's own environmental concerns. solar, wind? They have problems of their own in terms of lifespan of parts and disturbing the ecosystems where they can be installed for maximum efficiency, and would also require a several years long infrastructure project. If we just cut coal and the world relied on what "green" energy we have, there would be riots. Food would spoil, bank transactions wouldn't go through etc. It sucks but it is reality.
Personally I think we should have a short term solution of ramping up a bunch of nuclear facilities and heavily investing in Geothermal, tidal, wind and solar research to figure out a way to provide enough power to meet the needs of the world. No one is going to give up their devices , ring door bell cams, Server Farms, bit coin mines, Alexas, air-conditioning etc in the name of saving the planet even if the world is on fire. We are too selfish. Electric cars won't save us no matter how smug people who buy them feel about their ability to do just thatt. Sadly it will take a world changing disaster for anything to get traction and by then it will be too late.
That's why I try to do what I can and have as much fun as possible while car surfing at high speed towards this brick wall. I believe society as we know it is probably doomed. I'm also not sure that that is a bad thing, it is what got us here after all.
Or, perhaps, I go after coal because I have experience in the energy industry and know that coal is much dirtier than other fossil fuels and is replaceable with clean tech currently available, and is a big source of pollution and it’s energy is almost completely replaceable.
According to the EPA, Coal combustion is more carbon-intensive than burning natural gas or petroleum for electric power production. coal use accounted for 59% of CO2 emissions from the sector, it represented only 23% of the electricity generated in the United States in 2021.
For perspective, in comparison to another bad source of greenhouse gas, “ Natural gas is a fossil fuel, though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil. Natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when combusted in a new, efficient natural gas-power plant compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant.”
It’s great to talk about other factors such as recycling, but does this technology and the related logistics really work? Who looks after the thousands of municipalities in charge of reclycling programs?
I am bringing out coal because if we are unified and smart, eliminating coal would have a huge impact immediately, unlike Musks EVs that are powered by… fossil fuel.
Converting electric generation away from coal has a triple benefit, 1, coal is twice as dirty as other fossil fuels, removing it has double the impact, 2, converting to renewable energy cleans the electricity generation sector, and 3) helps power other sectors such as transportation so then Musk can save the world. But the left is too divided to fight the unified right.
And regarding the horrible Maui fires, this is an unfortunate event made far worse by extremely unusual high winds from two weather systems, with the added unusual impact hitting the dry western side of the island. If memory serves me right, it could not happen on this scale on the trade wind/wetter north or east sides of the island.
Edit, usually high winds like this are accompanied by tropical rains, but this was an unusual dry high wind event.
I am bringing out coal because if we are unified and smart, eliminating coal would have a huge impact immediately, unlike Musks EVs that are powered by… fossil fuel.
Converting electric generation away from coal has a triple benefit, 1, coal is twice as dirty as other fossil fuels, removing it has double the impact, 2, converting to renewable energy cleans the electricity generation sector, and 3) helps power other sectors such as transportation so then Musk can save the world. But the left is too divided to fight the unified right.
And regarding the horrible Maui fires, this is an unfortunate event made far worse by extremely unusual high winds from two weather systems, with the added unusual impact hitting the dry western side of the island. If memory serves me right, it could not happen on this scale on the trade wind/wetter north or east sides of the island.
Edit, usually high winds like this are accompanied by tropical rains, but this was an unusual dry high wind event.
Yeah, agreed, coal is bad news.
Here's something new to me. I'll have to read up more before getting too excited (i.e. will it lead to more fracking and other issues with mining), but it sounds possibly helpful:
Prospectors hit the gas in the hunt for ‘white hydrogen’
The zero-emission fuel may exist in abundant reserves below ground. Now large sums are being invested to look for it
For more than a decade, the village of
Bourakébougou in western Mali has been powered by a clean energy
phenomenon that may soon sweep the globe.
The
story begins with a cigarette. In 1987, a failed attempt to drill for
water released a stream of odourless gas that one unlucky smoker
discovered to be highly flammable. The well was quickly plugged and
forgotten. But almost 20 years later, drillers on the hunt for fossil
fuels confirmed the accidental discovery: hundreds of feet below the
arid earth of west Africa lies an abundance of naturally occurring, or
“white”, hydrogen.
Today,
it is used to generate green electricity for Bourakébougou’s homes and
shops. But geologists believe that untapped reservoirs of white hydrogen
in the US, Australia and parts of Europe have the potential to provide
the world with clean energy on a far greater scale.
This
would have major implications for the climate. Hydrogen has emerged as a
tool in the race to curb carbon emissions. The clean-burning gas can
replace fossil fuels in factories, power stations and homes with zero
greenhouse emissions.
The catch? Typically, hydrogen is made from fossil fuels in a process that creates carbon emissions (so-called “blue” hydrogen), or by using renewable electricity and water (green hydrogen), which is very expensive. The discovery of natural sources solves both problems.
The
size of the prize could be enormous: the US Geological Survey has said
that even if only a small fraction of hydrogen under the Earth’s surface
could be recovered, there would probably be enough to last for hundreds
of years.
During the Covid pandemic, Luke
Titus, founder of Gold Hydrogen, uncovered a historical hydrogen
discovery in South Australia. Titus was reviewing old documents from the
Geological Survey of South Australia which included an analysis of data
from local farmers who searched for oil using divining rods.
One
borehole drilled in 1921 on Kangaroo Island produced as much as 80%
hydrogen. Another, on the nearby Yorke peninsula, was close to 70%. A
century later, Gold Hydrogen began to explore the region and plans to
begin drilling in October.
The company is one of dozens of hydrogen startups which hope that Bourakébougou could be this century’s Oil
Creek, Pennsylvania – the site where the first commercial oil rig, in
1859, ignited an industry that would radically alter the course of human
progress.
The burgeoning hydrogen industry’s supporters include Bill Gates. The billionaire investor, through his company Breakthrough Energy,
was reportedly one of five backers to pour about $90m into Koloma, a
company based in Colorado which is hunting natural hydrogen along the
US’s Midcontinental Rift System.
The
1,200-mile tectonic fault running through North America is also being
targeted by Natural Hydrogen Energy, a startup due to begin exploration
work alongside Australia’s HyTerra in Kansas later this month.
In
Europe, which remains gripped by a gas supply crisis as a result of of
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, white hydrogen has been discovered in
France, in the Lorraine mining basin. And a British company, Getech, is
adapting software developed to find oil to locate hydrogen deposits.
The
true potential of white hydrogen will depend on the findings from these
early projects, says Philip Ball, a research fellow at Keele University
and a geoscientist in the field.
“We’re on
the cusp of a new understanding but whether this translates into a
serious new energy source is a very big question,” Ball says. “Many
geologists don’t understand this field. There’s a feeling of ‘well, if
hydrogen was there, wouldn’t major oil companies have found it already’?
But they weren’t looking for it. Most hydrogen discoveries have been by
accident.”
There remains uncertainty over the
way hydrogen forms deep within the Earth, exactly how it migrates to
the surface, and how best to extract it. The answers will be crucial in
understanding what white hydrogen would cost to produce. Estimates
suggest it would be cheaper than hydrogen from fossil fuels or water –
but there are many caveats.
Oil companies including Total and Engie in
France, and Repsol in Spain, have taken modest steps on white hydrogen.
There is limited interest from the industry’s largest players, but the
results from the pioneer hydrogen hunters could change that. If white
hydrogen can live up to the hype, the oil majors could enter the market,
as they followed the early shale gas “wildcatters” into fracking. This
time, the results could be a bonus for the climate too.
Perhaps
the key question is whether the oil companies would be willing to help.
Think of a see-saw, says Ball: there might be resistance to helping an
industry flourish if its success means driving down the value of
multitrillion-dollar fossil gas reserves. But there could be a tipping
point where it would become a financial risk to miss out.
“They
don’t want stranded assets, but white hydrogen could cannibalise their
primary market,” said Ball. “At what point does the see-saw tip?”
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Young environmental activists prevail in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana
By MATTHEW BROWN and AMY BETH HANSON
55 mins ago
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Young environmental activists scored what may be a groundbreaking legal victory Monday when a Montana judge said state agencies were violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by allowing fossil fuel development.
If it stands, the ruling could set an important legal precedent, though experts said its immediate impacts will be limited and state officials pledged to seek to overturn the decision on appeal.
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley found the policy the state uses in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits — which does not allow agencies to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions — is unconstitutional.
Judge Seeley wrote in the ruling that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to the youth.
Law professor David Dana at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law said the ruling was a “remarkable win” for the young climate activists and predicted it will be used as a guidepost for attorneys bringing similar suits in other states.
However, it’s up to the Montana Legislature to determine how to bring the state's policies into compliance. That leaves slim chances for immediate change in a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the statehouse.
Montana is one of the few states that has environmental protections written into its constitution.
“The ruling really provides nothing beyond emotional support for the many cases seeking to establish a public trust right, human right or a federal constitutional right” to a healthy environment, said James Huffman, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland.
State officials tried to derail the case and prevent it from going to trial through numerous motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Seeley rejected those attempts.
Julia Olson, an attorney representing the youth, released a statement calling the ruling a win "for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”
“As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos,” said Olson, the executive director of Our Children's Trust, an Oregon environmental group that has filed lawsuits over climate change in every state since 2011.
Emily Flower, spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as “absurd” and said the office planned to appeal. She criticized Seeley for allowing the plaintiffs to put on what Flower called a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.”
“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate," Flower said in an email. "Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”
Attorneys for the 16 plaintiffs, ranging in age from 5 to 22, presented evidence during the two-week trial in June that increasing carbon dioxide emissions are driving hotter temperatures, more drought and wildfires and decreased snowpack.
The plaintiffs said those changes were harming their mental and physical health, with wildfire smoke choking the air they breathe and drought drying out rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation. Native Americans testifying for the plaintiffs said climate change affects their ceremonies and traditional food sources.
“I know that climate change is a global issue, but Montana needs to take responsibility for our part,” lead plaintiff Rikki Held, 22, testified during the trial. “You can’t just blow it off and do nothing about it.”
The state argued that even if Montana completely stopped producing C02, it would have no effect on a global scale because states and countries around the world contribute to the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. A remedy has to offer relief, the state said, or it’s not a remedy at all.
But Seeley said the state's attorneys failed to give a compelling reason for why they were not evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. She rejected the notion that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are insignificant and noted that renewable power is “technically feasible and economically beneficial," citing testimony from the trial indicating Montana could replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030.
“Every additional ton of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries,” she wrote.
Since its founding, Our Children's Trust has raised more than $20 million to press its lawsuits in state and federal court. No previous attempts reached trial.
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate. This spring, carbon dioxide levels in the air reached the highest levels they’ve been in over 4 million years, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration said earlier this month.
Greenhouse gas emissions also reached a record high last year, according to the International Energy Agency.
July was the hottest month on record globally and likely the warmest that human civilization has seen, according to scientists.
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
Young environmental activists prevail in first-of-its-kind climate change trial in Montana
By MATTHEW BROWN and AMY BETH HANSON
55 mins ago
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Young environmental activists scored what may be a groundbreaking legal victory Monday when a Montana judge said state agencies were violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by allowing fossil fuel development.
If it stands, the ruling could set an important legal precedent, though experts said its immediate impacts will be limited and state officials pledged to seek to overturn the decision on appeal.
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley found the policy the state uses in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits — which does not allow agencies to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions — is unconstitutional.
Judge Seeley wrote in the ruling that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to the youth.
Law professor David Dana at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law said the ruling was a “remarkable win” for the young climate activists and predicted it will be used as a guidepost for attorneys bringing similar suits in other states.
However, it’s up to the Montana Legislature to determine how to bring the state's policies into compliance. That leaves slim chances for immediate change in a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the statehouse.
Montana is one of the few states that has environmental protections written into its constitution.
“The ruling really provides nothing beyond emotional support for the many cases seeking to establish a public trust right, human right or a federal constitutional right” to a healthy environment, said James Huffman, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland.
State officials tried to derail the case and prevent it from going to trial through numerous motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Seeley rejected those attempts.
Julia Olson, an attorney representing the youth, released a statement calling the ruling a win "for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”
“As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos,” said Olson, the executive director of Our Children's Trust, an Oregon environmental group that has filed lawsuits over climate change in every state since 2011.
Emily Flower, spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as “absurd” and said the office planned to appeal. She criticized Seeley for allowing the plaintiffs to put on what Flower called a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.”
“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate," Flower said in an email. "Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”
Attorneys for the 16 plaintiffs, ranging in age from 5 to 22, presented evidence during the two-week trial in June that increasing carbon dioxide emissions are driving hotter temperatures, more drought and wildfires and decreased snowpack.
The plaintiffs said those changes were harming their mental and physical health, with wildfire smoke choking the air they breathe and drought drying out rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation. Native Americans testifying for the plaintiffs said climate change affects their ceremonies and traditional food sources.
“I know that climate change is a global issue, but Montana needs to take responsibility for our part,” lead plaintiff Rikki Held, 22, testified during the trial. “You can’t just blow it off and do nothing about it.”
The state argued that even if Montana completely stopped producing C02, it would have no effect on a global scale because states and countries around the world contribute to the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. A remedy has to offer relief, the state said, or it’s not a remedy at all.
But Seeley said the state's attorneys failed to give a compelling reason for why they were not evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. She rejected the notion that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are insignificant and noted that renewable power is “technically feasible and economically beneficial," citing testimony from the trial indicating Montana could replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030.
“Every additional ton of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries,” she wrote.
Since its founding, Our Children's Trust has raised more than $20 million to press its lawsuits in state and federal court. No previous attempts reached trial.
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate. This spring, carbon dioxide levels in the air reached the highest levels they’ve been in over 4 million years, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration said earlier this month.
Greenhouse gas emissions also reached a record high last year, according to the International Energy Agency.
July was the hottest month on record globally and likely the warmest that human civilization has seen, according to scientists.
That is amazing indeed! I'm encouraged to see that a lot of people, particularly the energetic younger adults, doing the hard work of standing up for the Planet. Kudos to the Montana activists!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Careful, you never know who might fly a private jet and is associated with this forum. It’s an unfortunate part of doing business.
I think it’s far worse to announce on sale dates for tours in the tiniest increments possible , maximizing a loyal fanbase hopping on jets and using carbon, instead of waiting til the tour comes to them within driving distance. But fans would argue this is their vaca so they’d fly anyway, so there’s no way to improve the carbon usage
really, getting rid of coal is the best way, and also that Montana lawsuits shows some promise, if it’s held up by scotus.
Careful, you never know who might fly a private jet and is associated with this forum. It’s an unfortunate part of doing business.
I think it’s far worse to announce on sale dates for tours in the tiniest increments possible , maximizing a loyal fanbase hopping on jets and using carbon, instead of waiting til the tour comes to them within driving distance. But fans would argue this is their vaca so they’d fly anyway, so there’s no way to improve the carbon usage
really, getting rid of coal is the best way, and also that Montana lawsuits shows some promise, if it’s held up by scotus.
I wouldn't cut anyone slack who flies in a private jet. If commercial flight was good enough for Tony Bennett and K. D. Lang, it's good enough for anyone:
Two memories of Tony stand out for me, and both of them take place
around the airport – I toured with him a lot and we travelled by
commercial plane. One time we toured Australia, so we were flying for a
long time. My manager and I are having dinner. Afterwards, Tony stands
up and hands my manager a sketch of him. That’s just who he was – always
creating, always generous. The other thing was his grace in the airport
– he is super-recognisable and he would be stopped all the time.
Travelling gets pretty taxing and he was in his mid-70s when we were
touring. But he was always available, always
gracious. If he didn’t have time to engage in a full conversation, he
would look at someone, smile and say, “thank you” and then move on. It
was enough for people. To me, that education almost surpassed
everything.
Also, I don't buy the carbon offset business. I suppose it makes some people feel good- or at least less guilty.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Following up on the carbon footprint of the wealthy with their private jets, here is a take on how tax havens contribute to inequality and the climate.
Here is yet more evidence (though the empirical evidence out there is enough to make the point very clear) of how serious a situation we are in. This also clearly illustrates that our law makers are not doing enough- none of them. The right is not only doing nothing, they are mostly making things worse, but don't fool yourself- the left is culpable as well. There is no more time for compromise.
Here is yet more evidence (though the empirical evidence out there is enough to make the point very clear) of how serious a situation we are in. This also clearly illustrates that our law makers are not doing enough- none of them. The right is not only doing nothing, they are mostly making things worse, but don't fool yourself- the left is culpable as well. There is no more time for compromise.
For Kalmus to say “that’s (Bidens actions) the cause of all of this damage” is unfair and misleading. Drilling on federal land accounts for less than ten percent of US fossil fuel production.
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The technology to replace fossil fuels are still a decade or more away (yes Elon, your cars run on fossil fuels). Gas and oil prices are surging, and that usually spells defeat for a US president.
So if Biden today cancels all drilling on US lands with the current energy industry problems caused by Putin, and Biden were to lose as a result of gas prices climbing back towards $5 a gallon, trump wins, cancels all spending from the climate bill, how’s that going to help the climate?
Here is yet more evidence (though the empirical evidence out there is enough to make the point very clear) of how serious a situation we are in. This also clearly illustrates that our law makers are not doing enough- none of them. The right is not only doing nothing, they are mostly making things worse, but don't fool yourself- the left is culpable as well. There is no more time for compromise.
For Kalmus to say “that’s (Bidens actions) the cause of all of this damage” is unfair and misleading. Drilling on federal land accounts for less than ten percent of US fossil fuel production.
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The technology to replace fossil fuels are still a decade or more away (yes Elon, your cars run on fossil fuels). Gas and oil prices are surging, and that usually spells defeat for a US president.
So if Biden today cancels all drilling on US lands with the current energy industry problems caused by Putin, and Biden were to lose as a result of gas prices climbing back towards $5 a gallon, trump wins, cancels all spending from the climate bill, how’s that going to help the climate?
The problem was not created only by Biden, of course. It a lot more complicated than that. It has been created by law makers and leaders all over the world, and by corporate heads, and by you and me and pretty much everybody in the 1st world.
As for the solution- I don't know anymore. That work started in earnest some 40 years ago and little progress has been made because not enough people really cared beyond lip service. People kept commuting long distances to work and buy big over-sized pickup trucks and jet skies and cheap plastic crap that had to be replaced frequently. We kept voting for people on both sides of the isle who are weak on environment (including Biden). We kept overpopulating our species. We pretended things like carbon offsets and electric cars and solar panels were going to save the world but these were all based on the economy of more, not less.
And do we even really care about doing anything about it? Here we are, on a web site visited by a great group of people who, I believe, are generally more liberal and up on things than the average person. Yet where is our focus? We go on and on about politicians and immigration and economics and gun control and sexual preferences- all important topics we all care about- but how much focus does this place place on environment? A small percentage.
So no, I don't have any new answers. My thoughts have always been the same- reduce consumption, be conscious of the difference between want and need, purchase durable goods instead of cheap crap, greatly decrease air and cruise ship travel, reduce driving, increase public transportation, live closer to work, walk, adjust the thermostat to use less energy, support increased education in third world countries, slow human reproduction, and vote for the candidate who is most likely to help with environmental issues (if you can find one).
We have crossed the threshold. Global warming is here to stay. The best we can do now is slow it down and figure out how to live with extreme weather. Many will survive, but many will not. That's the cold, hard reality.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Here is yet more evidence (though the empirical evidence out there is enough to make the point very clear) of how serious a situation we are in. This also clearly illustrates that our law makers are not doing enough- none of them. The right is not only doing nothing, they are mostly making things worse, but don't fool yourself- the left is culpable as well. There is no more time for compromise.
For Kalmus to say “that’s (Bidens actions) the cause of all of this damage” is unfair and misleading. Drilling on federal land accounts for less than ten percent of US fossil fuel production.
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The technology to replace fossil fuels are still a decade or more away (yes Elon, your cars run on fossil fuels). Gas and oil prices are surging, and that usually spells defeat for a US president.
So if Biden today cancels all drilling on US lands with the current energy industry problems caused by Putin, and Biden were to lose as a result of gas prices climbing back towards $5 a gallon, trump wins, cancels all spending from the climate bill, how’s that going to help the climate?
The problem was not created only by Biden, of course. It a lot more complicated than that. It has been created by law makers and leaders all over the world, and by corporate heads, and by you and me and pretty much everybody in the 1st world.
As for the solution- I don't know anymore. That work started in earnest some 40 years ago and little progress has been made because not enough people really cared beyond lip service. People kept commuting long distances to work and buy big over-sized pickup trucks and jet skies and cheap plastic crap that had to be replaced frequently. We kept voting for people on both sides of the isle who are weak on environment (including Biden). We kept overpopulating our species. We pretended things like carbon offsets and electric cars and solar panels were going to save the world but these were all based on the economy of more, not less.
And do we even really care about doing anything about it? Here we are, on a web site visited by a great group of people who, I believe, are generally more liberal and up on things than the average person. Yet where is our focus? We go on and on about politicians and immigration and economics and gun control and sexual preferences- all important topics we all care about- but how much focus does this place place on environment? A small percentage.
So no, I don't have any new answers. My thoughts have always been the same- reduce consumption, be conscious of the difference between want and need, purchase durable goods instead of cheap crap, greatly decrease air and cruise ship travel, reduce driving, increase public transportation, live closer to work, walk, adjust the thermostat to use less energy, support increased education in third world countries, slow human reproduction, and vote for the candidate who is most likely to help with environmental issues (if you can find one).
We have crossed the threshold. Global warming is here to stay. The best we can do now is slow it down and figure out how to live with extreme weather. Many will survive, but many will not. That's the cold, hard reality.
Well said. What concerns me a lot is we see the planet is burning right in front of our eyes, S American winters now feature 100 degree heat, and people are more concerned about Bidens age, even here on our left leaning forum. We used to have many left leaning independents who weren’t thrilled with Biden, who barely comment here anymore.
FFS, a major poll yesterday had trump ahead of Biden by a point. What TF is in the heads of 45% of this country? If trump wins, he will cancel spending on Bidens climate bill, and ramp up as much oil drilling as possible. But yeah, Bidens too old.
Here is yet more evidence (though the empirical evidence out there is enough to make the point very clear) of how serious a situation we are in. This also clearly illustrates that our law makers are not doing enough- none of them. The right is not only doing nothing, they are mostly making things worse, but don't fool yourself- the left is culpable as well. There is no more time for compromise.
For Kalmus to say “that’s (Bidens actions) the cause of all of this damage” is unfair and misleading. Drilling on federal land accounts for less than ten percent of US fossil fuel production.
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The technology to replace fossil fuels are still a decade or more away (yes Elon, your cars run on fossil fuels). Gas and oil prices are surging, and that usually spells defeat for a US president.
So if Biden today cancels all drilling on US lands with the current energy industry problems caused by Putin, and Biden were to lose as a result of gas prices climbing back towards $5 a gallon, trump wins, cancels all spending from the climate bill, how’s that going to help the climate?
The problem was not created only by Biden, of course. It a lot more complicated than that. It has been created by law makers and leaders all over the world, and by corporate heads, and by you and me and pretty much everybody in the 1st world.
As for the solution- I don't know anymore. That work started in earnest some 40 years ago and little progress has been made because not enough people really cared beyond lip service. People kept commuting long distances to work and buy big over-sized pickup trucks and jet skies and cheap plastic crap that had to be replaced frequently. We kept voting for people on both sides of the isle who are weak on environment (including Biden). We kept overpopulating our species. We pretended things like carbon offsets and electric cars and solar panels were going to save the world but these were all based on the economy of more, not less.
And do we even really care about doing anything about it? Here we are, on a web site visited by a great group of people who, I believe, are generally more liberal and up on things than the average person. Yet where is our focus? We go on and on about politicians and immigration and economics and gun control and sexual preferences- all important topics we all care about- but how much focus does this place place on environment? A small percentage.
So no, I don't have any new answers. My thoughts have always been the same- reduce consumption, be conscious of the difference between want and need, purchase durable goods instead of cheap crap, greatly decrease air and cruise ship travel, reduce driving, increase public transportation, live closer to work, walk, adjust the thermostat to use less energy, support increased education in third world countries, slow human reproduction, and vote for the candidate who is most likely to help with environmental issues (if you can find one).
We have crossed the threshold. Global warming is here to stay. The best we can do now is slow it down and figure out how to live with extreme weather. Many will survive, but many will not. That's the cold, hard reality.
Well said. What concerns me a lot is we see the planet is burning right in front of our eyes, S American winters now feature 100 degree heat, and people are more concerned about Bidens age, even here on our left leaning forum. We used to have many left leaning independents who weren’t thrilled with Biden, who barely comment here anymore.
FFS, a major poll yesterday had trump ahead of Biden by a point. What TF is in the heads of 45% of this country? If trump wins, he will cancel spending on Bidens climate bill, and ramp up as much oil drilling as possible. But yeah, Bidens too old.
I look at it like this, sometimes you have to get to the bottom of the hole before you can climb out.
Comments
A storm has never helped a fire prior. They used to never have fires because the land was being farmed. There is hardly any farmland because of development.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Of course you can still buy farms but they are few and far between now. The island imports about 90% of its vegetables now.
So that is how there is hardly any farmland now.
Not sure how you can say “hardly any farming.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
40% might be zoned agriculture but Maui has 460,000 acres and 120,000 are farmed which is 25%. If it is zoned for 40% then 15 % of that is grass and weeds.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I was reading that foreign grass was a culprit of the spread too. Initially I read grass then another article pointed out to foreign grass.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Maybe the Yellowstone cauldron will blow first, and we won't have to worry about the North Atlantic current so much.
Yep.
It’s great to talk about other factors such as recycling, but does this technology and the related logistics really work? Who looks after the thousands of municipalities in charge of reclycling programs?
For decades we recycled thinking we were helping the environment, and all we were really doing was killing impoverished Chinese citizens
.
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled
And regarding the horrible Maui fires, this is an unfortunate event made far worse by extremely unusual high winds from two weather systems, with the added unusual impact hitting the dry western side of the island. If memory serves me right, it could not happen on this scale on the trade wind/wetter north or east sides of the island.
Prospectors hit the gas in the hunt for ‘white hydrogen’
The zero-emission fuel may exist in abundant reserves below ground. Now large sums are being invested to look for it
For more than a decade, the village of Bourakébougou in western Mali has been powered by a clean energy phenomenon that may soon sweep the globe.
The story begins with a cigarette. In 1987, a failed attempt to drill for water released a stream of odourless gas that one unlucky smoker discovered to be highly flammable. The well was quickly plugged and forgotten. But almost 20 years later, drillers on the hunt for fossil fuels confirmed the accidental discovery: hundreds of feet below the arid earth of west Africa lies an abundance of naturally occurring, or “white”, hydrogen.
Today, it is used to generate green electricity for Bourakébougou’s homes and shops. But geologists believe that untapped reservoirs of white hydrogen in the US, Australia and parts of Europe have the potential to provide the world with clean energy on a far greater scale.
This would have major implications for the climate. Hydrogen has emerged as a tool in the race to curb carbon emissions. The clean-burning gas can replace fossil fuels in factories, power stations and homes with zero greenhouse emissions.
The catch? Typically, hydrogen is made from fossil fuels in a process that creates carbon emissions (so-called “blue” hydrogen), or by using renewable electricity and water (green hydrogen), which is very expensive. The discovery of natural sources solves both problems.
The size of the prize could be enormous: the US Geological Survey has said that even if only a small fraction of hydrogen under the Earth’s surface could be recovered, there would probably be enough to last for hundreds of years.
During the Covid pandemic, Luke Titus, founder of Gold Hydrogen, uncovered a historical hydrogen discovery in South Australia. Titus was reviewing old documents from the Geological Survey of South Australia which included an analysis of data from local farmers who searched for oil using divining rods.
One borehole drilled in 1921 on Kangaroo Island produced as much as 80% hydrogen. Another, on the nearby Yorke peninsula, was close to 70%. A century later, Gold Hydrogen began to explore the region and plans to begin drilling in October.
The company is one of dozens of hydrogen startups which hope that Bourakébougou could be this century’s Oil Creek, Pennsylvania – the site where the first commercial oil rig, in 1859, ignited an industry that would radically alter the course of human progress.
The burgeoning hydrogen industry’s supporters include Bill Gates. The billionaire investor, through his company Breakthrough Energy, was reportedly one of five backers to pour about $90m into Koloma, a company based in Colorado which is hunting natural hydrogen along the US’s Midcontinental Rift System.
The 1,200-mile tectonic fault running through North America is also being targeted by Natural Hydrogen Energy, a startup due to begin exploration work alongside Australia’s HyTerra in Kansas later this month.
In Europe, which remains gripped by a gas supply crisis as a result of of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, white hydrogen has been discovered in France, in the Lorraine mining basin. And a British company, Getech, is adapting software developed to find oil to locate hydrogen deposits.
The true potential of white hydrogen will depend on the findings from these early projects, says Philip Ball, a research fellow at Keele University and a geoscientist in the field.
“We’re on the cusp of a new understanding but whether this translates into a serious new energy source is a very big question,” Ball says. “Many geologists don’t understand this field. There’s a feeling of ‘well, if hydrogen was there, wouldn’t major oil companies have found it already’? But they weren’t looking for it. Most hydrogen discoveries have been by accident.”
There remains uncertainty over the way hydrogen forms deep within the Earth, exactly how it migrates to the surface, and how best to extract it. The answers will be crucial in understanding what white hydrogen would cost to produce. Estimates suggest it would be cheaper than hydrogen from fossil fuels or water – but there are many caveats.
Oil companies including Total and Engie in France, and Repsol in Spain, have taken modest steps on white hydrogen. There is limited interest from the industry’s largest players, but the results from the pioneer hydrogen hunters could change that. If white hydrogen can live up to the hype, the oil majors could enter the market, as they followed the early shale gas “wildcatters” into fracking. This time, the results could be a bonus for the climate too.
Perhaps the key question is whether the oil companies would be willing to help. Think of a see-saw, says Ball: there might be resistance to helping an industry flourish if its success means driving down the value of multitrillion-dollar fossil gas reserves. But there could be a tipping point where it would become a financial risk to miss out.
“They don’t want stranded assets, but white hydrogen could cannibalise their primary market,” said Ball. “At what point does the see-saw tip?”
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — Young environmental activists scored what may be a groundbreaking legal victory Monday when a Montana judge said state agencies were violating their constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by allowing fossil fuel development.
The ruling in this first-of-its- kind trial in the U.S. adds to a small number of legal decisions around the world that have established a government duty to protect citizens from climate change.
If it stands, the ruling could set an important legal precedent, though experts said its immediate impacts will be limited and state officials pledged to seek to overturn the decision on appeal.
District Court Judge Kathy Seeley found the policy the state uses in evaluating requests for fossil fuel permits — which does not allow agencies to evaluate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions — is unconstitutional.
Judge Seeley wrote in the ruling that “Montana’s emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment and harm and injury” to the youth.
Law professor David Dana at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law said the ruling was a “remarkable win” for the young climate activists and predicted it will be used as a guidepost for attorneys bringing similar suits in other states.
However, it’s up to the Montana Legislature to determine how to bring the state's policies into compliance. That leaves slim chances for immediate change in a fossil fuel-friendly state where Republicans dominate the statehouse.
Montana is one of the few states that has environmental protections written into its constitution.
“The ruling really provides nothing beyond emotional support for the many cases seeking to establish a public trust right, human right or a federal constitutional right” to a healthy environment, said James Huffman, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland.
State officials tried to derail the case and prevent it from going to trial through numerous motions to dismiss the lawsuit. Seeley rejected those attempts.
Julia Olson, an attorney representing the youth, released a statement calling the ruling a win "for Montana, for youth, for democracy, and for our climate.”
“As fires rage in the West, fueled by fossil fuel pollution, today’s ruling in Montana is a game-changer that marks a turning point in this generation’s efforts to save the planet from the devastating effects of human-caused climate chaos,” said Olson, the executive director of Our Children's Trust, an Oregon environmental group that has filed lawsuits over climate change in every state since 2011.
Emily Flower, spokesperson for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, decried the ruling as “absurd” and said the office planned to appeal. She criticized Seeley for allowing the plaintiffs to put on what Flower called a “taxpayer-funded publicity stunt.”
“Montanans can’t be blamed for changing the climate," Flower said in an email. "Their same legal theory has been thrown out of federal court and courts in more than a dozen states. It should have been here as well, but they found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward and earn herself a spot in their next documentary.”
Attorneys for the 16 plaintiffs, ranging in age from 5 to 22, presented evidence during the two-week trial in June that increasing carbon dioxide emissions are driving hotter temperatures, more drought and wildfires and decreased snowpack.
The plaintiffs said those changes were harming their mental and physical health, with wildfire smoke choking the air they breathe and drought drying out rivers that sustain agriculture, fish, wildlife and recreation. Native Americans testifying for the plaintiffs said climate change affects their ceremonies and traditional food sources.
“I know that climate change is a global issue, but Montana needs to take responsibility for our part,” lead plaintiff Rikki Held, 22, testified during the trial. “You can’t just blow it off and do nothing about it.”
The state argued that even if Montana completely stopped producing C02, it would have no effect on a global scale because states and countries around the world contribute to the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. A remedy has to offer relief, the state said, or it’s not a remedy at all.
But Seeley said the state's attorneys failed to give a compelling reason for why they were not evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. She rejected the notion that Montana’s greenhouse gas emissions are insignificant and noted that renewable power is “technically feasible and economically beneficial," citing testimony from the trial indicating Montana could replace 80% of existing fossil fuel energy by 2030.
“Every additional ton of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions exacerbates plaintiffs’ injuries and risks locking in irreversible climate injuries,” she wrote.
Since its founding, Our Children's Trust has raised more than $20 million to press its lawsuits in state and federal court. No previous attempts reached trial.
Carbon dioxide, which is released when fossil fuels are burned, traps heat in the atmosphere and is largely responsible for the warming of the climate. This spring, carbon dioxide levels in the air reached the highest levels they’ve been in over 4 million years, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration said earlier this month.
Greenhouse gas emissions also reached a record high last year, according to the International Energy Agency.
July was the hottest month on record globally and likely the warmest that human civilization has seen, according to scientists.
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
That is amazing indeed! I'm encouraged to see that a lot of people, particularly the energetic younger adults, doing the hard work of standing up for the Planet. Kudos to the Montana activists!
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/17/business/rich-americans-climate-footprint-emissions/index.html
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Private jets no less. How the hell does someone fly in a private jet and not feel like a total POS?
really, getting rid of coal is the best way, and also that Montana lawsuits shows some promise, if it’s held up by scotus.
We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The technology to replace fossil fuels are still a decade or more away (yes Elon, your cars run on fossil fuels). Gas and oil prices are surging, and that usually spells defeat for a US president.
So if Biden today cancels all drilling on US lands with the current energy industry problems caused by Putin, and Biden were to lose as a result of gas prices climbing back towards $5 a gallon, trump wins, cancels all spending from the climate bill, how’s that going to help the climate?
FFS, a major poll yesterday had trump ahead of Biden by a point. What TF is in the heads of 45% of this country? If trump wins, he will cancel spending on Bidens climate bill, and ramp up as much oil drilling as possible. But yeah, Bidens too old.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden