Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Valmy]

Climate wars

Well maybe some day. I don't think we are quite where we need to be to be able to ruin one country's climate without also destroying your own in the near future.

[Josquius]

Climate wars

Well maybe some day. I don't think we are quite where we need to be to be able to ruin one country's climate without also destroying your own in the near future.

I dunno, I could see Russia seeing it as a favourable bet. They're pretty pro climate change as they think it's all positive for them.

[viper37]

Using copper to convert CO₂ to methane could be game changer in mitigating climate change

I wonder what the implications of that are going to be.

Pumping more oil and gas. 

[grumbler]

Using copper to convert CO₂ to methane could be game changer in mitigating climate change

That doesn't make a lot of sense.  Methane is CH4.  Carbon Dioxide is CO2. So it needs more than energy + copper to make a conversion.

[HVC]

Using copper to convert CO₂ to methane could be game changer in mitigating climate change

That doesn't make a lot of sense.  Methane is CH4.  Carbon Dioxide is CO2. So it needs more than energy + copper to make a conversion.

Guessing water, which would also be a product of methane combustion so could be closed loop too ( or close to it, if you're capturing co2 anyway )

[Richard Hakluyt]

The surplus electricity is used to electrolyse water and the carbon dioxide reacts with the hydrogen to produce methane and water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction and heat.

Why not simply use the hydrogen generated in the electrolysis to generate power when needed    ? Methane is an easier and safer gas to handle that may be the reason?

[grumbler]

The surplus electricity is used to electrolyse water and the carbon dioxide reacts with the hydrogen to produce methane and water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction and heat.

Why not simply use the hydrogen generated in the electrolysis to generate power when needed    ? Methane is an easier and safer gas to handle that may be the reason?

Thanks for that link.  I think that the reason to convert to methane is that it has much better energy density per unit of volume, which is key when considering that this technique is proposed as a way to store energy to smooth out the energy delivery of solar and wind energy.

[Sheilbh]

Possibly the most important bit of climate news this year: it looks like China's emissions have peaked. On track to decline this year because of huge increase in renewables installation, EV use and particularly this year lots of rain which is boosting hydro.

The last is a bit flash in the pan - but on the first two China's doing as much as the rest of the world combined and no sign the pace is slowing down.

Edit: And particular significance is that some experts on this basically think China's emissions peak will also be the global emissions peak.

[Norgy]

I've found a certain irony in that most deniers also are anti-immigrant over here. Because there will be no mass movement of people from unlivable conditions, of course. Fuelled partially by Norwegian oil and gas.

[Valmy]

Edit: And particular significance is that some experts on this basically think China's emissions peak will also be the global emissions peak.

Good. We keep emissions going down while continuing to plant trees and do other mitigation efforts and maybe we start to get this under control soon. There might be some tough times in the meantime though 

[Richard Hakluyt]

Welcome back Norgy, great to see you 

I agree it would make sense for the anti-immigrant people to embrace green measures; without them then large parts of the tropical zone (most importantly the Indo-Gangetic plain) will become unfit for human habitation and hundreds of millions will be on the move.

But I suppose consistency is not a human strong point. The Guardian often praises Norway for its sovereign wealth fund for example; you know, the one that is creating a rentier state on the back of massive fossil fuel production 

[Norgy]

But I suppose consistency is not a human strong point. The Guardian often praises Norway for its sovereign wealth fund for example; you know, the one that is creating a rentier state on the back of massive fossil fuel production 

Good to see you, RH!
Norway's making headwaves in how not to take care of the conditions around us. There was recently a parliamentary voto to allow dumping all sorts of mining slag in a fjord. Great. And, to top that, Norway just decided to allow mineral mining in the deep ocean.

We're basically doing greenxplotation. And collectively own some streets in London.

[Barrister]

But I suppose consistency is not a human strong point. The Guardian often praises Norway for its sovereign wealth fund for example; you know, the one that is creating a rentier state on the back of massive fossil fuel production 

Good to see you, RH!
Norway's making headwaves in how not to take care of the conditions around us. There was recently a parliamentary voto to allow dumping all sorts of mining slag in a fjord. Great. And, to top that, Norway just decided to allow mineral mining in the deep ocean.

We're basically doing greenxplotation. And collectively own some streets in London.

So all I know is the couple of lines you posted, so forgive me if I'm missing some nuance.

The thing is mining is essential to modern human life.  Given that this is the climate change thread, all those amazing green technologies like solar panels and Lithium-ion batteries which are allowing us to reduce CO2 emissions - all rely on mining.

As a human civilization we can't afford to be NIMBYs about mining, and just allow it to be done in third world countries so we don't have to see it.

If there are specific concerns about specific projects then sure we can have that talk.  But I don't see anything that should 100% prohibit us from A: mining the ocean floor or B: putting mining slag in a fjord.

p.s. yes I used to briefly work in the mining industry.

[Admiral Yi]

But I suppose consistency is not a human strong point. The Guardian often praises Norway for its sovereign wealth fund for example; you know, the one that is creating a rentier state on the back of massive fossil fuel production 

What's wrong with a rentier state? It sounds perfect to me.

[Richard Hakluyt]

I meant that the Guardian is being inconsistent in looking benevolently on Norway's actions.