Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[crazy canuck]

At the end of the day, I have to think solar is the answer. After all....basically all energy on the Earth being produced today comes back to solar anyway....

Ultimately everything is nuclear, with solar being just one step removed and then most other energy production more attenuated from that.

Depends where you are.  With better battery storage tech hydro, solar and wind can be built more quickly and inexpensively and provide complete coverage.  Keep in mind BC hydro supplies all the power needs of BC, and exports power - and this province is about the size of France and Germany combined.   For areas where that is not possible, they likely have to go nuclear.  But with transmission of energy also becoming more efficient, proximity to the source may not be an issue. necessary.

ulmont is pointing out that solar energy is actually nuclear energy.

Yes, and as pointed out, an oversimplification. 

If you want to be pedantic, hydro and wind are also driven by the sun, but not particularly useful to understand the solutions at hand.

[Syt]

I like the idea of how in the Transmetropolitan comics they solved the energy problem by covering Mercury in solar panels and beam the energy back to Earth (though they're not explaining how that is even remotely supposed to work ).

[Admiral Yi]

Agree with Beeb about misuse of subsidy.  Not like the IMF to publish clickbait and I can only hope it's the Guardian garbling the message.

[ulmont]

If you want to be pedantic, hydro and wind are also driven by the sun, but not particularly useful to understand the solutions at hand.

You don't actually read what other people post on languish, do you?  Or what did you think the "most other energy production more attenuated from that" was referring to?

[ulmont]

I like the idea of how in the Transmetropolitan comics they solved the energy problem by covering Mercury in solar panels and beam the energy back to Earth (though they're not explaining how that is even remotely supposed to work ).

Most similar suggestions here want to just transform the solar energy in earth orbit rather than at Mercury...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielcohen/2021/03/29/space-lasers-the-truth/
https://www.space.com/space-based-solar-power-air-force-sspidr-project

...I think the idea is that radio or microwave beams would get through the atmosphere better.

The details of aiming at a specific point on Earth from Mercury are filled with devils, though.

[crazy canuck]

If you want to be pedantic, hydro and wind are also driven by the sun, but not particularly useful to understand the solutions at hand.

You don't actually read what other people post on languish, do you?  Or what did you think the "most other energy production more attenuated from that" was referring to?

Sorry, I forget what Languish is.  Lets ignore my substantive post and engage in a pedantic shit fight.

[Sheilbh]

This doesn't sound positive. Li Keqiang has asked for more in-depth studies about emissions peak for China in linght of current energy shortages. Current plans were for China to peak before 2030.

Coal mines are being allowed to go over the annual quota - but I read that production's been hit by flooding in Shaanxi so that may not be a solution.

I think mismatch and swings will happen a lot more with energy transition so this may just be the start.

[The Larch]

Cop26 corporate sponsors condemn climate summit as 'mismanaged'
Exclusive: NatWest, Microsoft and GSK among firms to raise complaint over poor planning

Companies that stumped up millions of pounds to sponsor the Cop26 climate summit have condemned it as "mismanaged" and "very last minute" in a volley of complaints as next month's event in Glasgow draws near.

The sponsors, which include some of Britain's biggest companies, have raised formal complaints blaming "very inexperienced" civil servants for delayed decisions, poor communication and a breakdown in relations between the organisers and firms in the run-up to the landmark talks.

The Guardian understands that a letter to the organisers, written by broadcaster Sky and co-signed by senior leaders from other Cop26 sponsors, has raised concerns with them over these and other problems, and followed another co-signed letter in July.

The UK is running its Cop26 presidency from within the Cabinet Office, under the leadership of the former business secretary Alok Sharma, who is the Cop26 president, and the businessman Nigel Topping who was appointed the government's high-level climate action champion last year. Sponsorship is expected to help defray a policing bill estimated to reach up to £250m.

Alongside Sky, the summit has 10 other major sponsors, including energy giants Hitachi, National Grid, Scottish Power and SSE, US tech titan Microsoft, and FTSE companies GSK, NatWest, Reckitt, Sainsbury's and Unilever. Unilever has denied signing the letter penned by Sky. Other lower tier "partners" include the car maker Jaguar Land Rover and the furniture retailer Ikea.

One source, employed by a Cop26 sponsor, said that "the biggest frustration" was the lack of information about how the event will run, and the role for its key backers, because important questions have gone unanswered and planning decisions have been delayed.

"They had an extra year to prepare for Cop due to Covid, but it doesn't feel like this time was used to make better progress. Everything feels very last minute," the source said.

The upcoming climate talks, considered the last chance to put the world on track to meet its climate ambitions, are due to take place in early November after the event was postponed by a year because of the outbreak of Covid-19 in early 2020.

They have already been thrown into turmoil by suggestions that the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, will skip the event, threatening the chances of a global pact with the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter.

Organisers of Cop26 promised sponsors an "outstanding opportunity" and "unique benefits" in exchange for their support, including a chance to promote their brands at the conference "green zone" exhibition space and the participation of government ministers at their events.

But in multiple emails and official letters the companies have complained to organisers about unmet expectations, and deepening concerns over delays to the green zone plans. They have also raised complaints that ministers have not always been available for their events in the run-up to Cop26, as agreed as part of the sponsor deals.

Other sources have described the "shifting goal posts" and "inertia" plaguing the Cop26 planning as "deeply frustrating".

Many of the event's corporate backers regularly take part in high-profile sponsorship deals for big events, and have been left bewildered by the slow progress of the Cop26 events, another source explained.

The source blamed the "very young, very inexperienced" civil servants tasked with planning the event for taking a "top-down public sector approach" that has raised hackles among sponsors.

"It's clear that many of them have very little experience managing relationships in the private sector, or even experience attending a Cop event," the source said.

The energy company sponsors – Hitachi, National Grid, Scottish Power and SSE – are understood to be particularly frustrated because they were under the impression that no other energy brands would feature at Cop26. However, the "blue zone", which is organised by the UN, will include rival brands.

Ministers had been due to release three key documents on Monday on the government's plans to achieve its net zero target by 2035, but publication has been delayed owing to the murder of the MP Sir David Amess.

The documents reveal a stark split within the cabinet, understood to be between on one side Boris Johnson, the prime minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, and Michael Gove, responsible for improving the UK's homes, all seeing benefits to strong climate action; and on the other, the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, a free-market hawk instinctively opposed to government intervention.

All three papers are now expected to come later in the week, with the government seeking to preserve a show of unity over the publications.

The row over the government's handling of Cop26 planning has emerged amid public order concerns, with up to 150,000 protesters expected to take to Glasgow's streets in early November alongside the crucial climate talks, which will require one of the largest policing operations ever undertaken in Britain.

Countries and organisations planning to host events have also said they fear that increased costs will cause problems for developing nations.

Multiple participants told the Guardian earlier this month that the cost of renting Cop26 pavilions – event spaces for hosting workshops, panel discussions and keynote speeches during the conference – is considerably higher than it was at Cop25 in Madrid, with some saying it had increased by as much as 30%.

A Cop26 spokesperson said the organisers were "working closely" with sponsors which would increase the value-for-money for taxpayers, and reduce the overall financial cost of Cop26.

A Whitehall veteran of Cop summits said: "It feels like some of these sponsors have forgotten the actual reason we're in Glasgow. Cop isn't about branding, it's about tackling climate change. Keeping 1.5C in reach is the best thing you can do for your bottom line: they would do well to remember this."

[Tamas]

Incompetent government is also incompetent at having major event organised. Film at 11.

[Josquius]

In other UK news they announce 5000 quid funding for getting a heat pump.
All sorts of catches and probably still not economical but I'm intruiged.

[Sheilbh]

Incompetent government is also incompetent at having major event organised. Film at 11.

There's a bin strike, therre's a rail strike, there's going to be hundreds of thousands of protesters and it's the first big city global conference since the pandemic - there is a lot that might go wrong/be handled badly. I'm not entirely sold on an article about corporate sponsors not getting the level of access they were promised

In other UK news they announce 5000 quid funding for getting a heat pump.
All sorts of catches and probably still not economical but I'm intruiged.

Yeah we'll see. Whole thing seems interesting - and, at the very least, it's a start that can be built on:

Net zero strategy: Government plans will 'support up to 440,000 jobs', minister says - as plans to end sale of new petrol and diesel cars revealed
The government's new plan set out on Tuesday is aiming to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reach the net zero target by 2050.
Sophie Morris
Political reporter @itssophiemorris
Tuesday 19 October 2021 18:49, UK

The government's net zero strategy will "support up to 440,000 jobs" by 2030, a business minister has said - as he announced a move towards the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel cars.

The new plan, published on Tuesday, has the intention of dramatically reducing greenhouse gas emissions to reach the government's aim of net zero by 2050.

It comes less than two weeks before world leaders will meet at the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow to discuss how to reduce the effects of climate change.

Making a statement on the government's aims in the Commons, Greg Hands told MPs the strategy "is not just an environmental transition, it represents an important economic change too".

But Greenpeace UK's head of politics, Rebecca Newsom, described the government's strategy as "more like a pick and mix than the substantial meal that we need to reach net zero".

Announcements in the strategy include:
• An aim to fully decarbonise the power system by 2035
• Path towards all heating appliances in homes and workplaces from 2035 being low carbon
• An "ambition" that by 2035 no new gas boilers will be sold
• £450m three-year Boiler Upgrade Scheme to offer households grants for low-carbon heating systems
• £60m Heat Pump Ready programme
• To secure a decision on a large-scale nuclear plant by 2024
• 40GW of offshore wind by 2030
• To deliver 5GW of hydrogen production capacity by 2030 while halving oil and gas emissions
• To end sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030 with £620m for zero emission vehicle grants
• £2bn investment to help half of journeys in towns and cities to be cycled or walked by 2030
• An extra £625m for tree-planting
• £120m to develop small modular nuclear reactors

A review published by the Treasury says "the costs of global inaction significantly outweigh the costs of action" to tackle climate change.

The document, released alongside the government's net zero strategy, says it is not possible to forecast how individual household finances will be hit over the course of a 30-year transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Hands told the Commons the strategy will see the UK government fully embracing the "green industrial revolution" and will help the UK "to level up" and "get to the front of the global race to go green".

"We need to capitalise on this to ensure British industries and workers benefit," he said.

"I can therefore announce that the strategy will support up to 440,000 jobs across sectors and across all parts of the UK in 2030."

Mr Hands continued: "This strategy will harness the power of the private sector, giving businesses and industry the certainty they need to invest and grow in the UK to make the UK home to new ambitious projects.

"The policies and spending brought forward in the strategy along with regulations will leverage up to £90 billion of private investment by 2030 levelling up our former industrial heartlands."

The business minister, who is in charge of the energy brief, told MPs that switching to cleaner sources of energy will reduce Britain's reliance on fossil fuels and will "bring down costs down the line".

Mr Hands added that the government "will also introduce a zero emission vehicle mandate that will deliver our 2030 commitment to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars".

In strategy documents released on Tuesday, the government says it will invest £620m in grants for electric vehicles and street charging points.

Ministers are also promising an additional £350m to help the automotive supply chain transition to electric.

Vehicle manufacturers will also be made to sell a proportion of clean cars every year, the plans also reveal.

And the government is also planning to consult on whether it is appropriate to prevent new-build homes from connecting to the gas grid in England from 2025.

In the foreword to the strategy, Prime Minister Boris Johnson insists the government's targets can be achieved without giving up flying abroad or driving cars.

"In 2050, we will still be driving cars, flying planes and heating our homes, but our cars will be electric gliding silently around our cities, our planes will be zero emission allowing us to fly guilt-free, and our homes will be heated by cheap reliable power drawn from the winds of the North Sea," he writes.

Mr Johnson's official spokesman later revealed that Downing Street was planning to install heat pumps in line with the net zero strategy.

"The estate is heated by energy-efficient boilers and we are looking to introduce heat pumps to go even further as part of our net zero ambitions," the spokesman said.

But referring to the government's strategy as "half-hearted policies", Greenpeace UK's Ms Newsom said: "With just eight years left to halve global emissions, the government can't just keep dining out on its 'ambitious targets'.

"Until the policy and funding gaps are closed, Boris Johnson's plea to other countries to deliver on their promises at the global climate conference next month will be easy to ignore."

Shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband said the plan "falls short on delivery" and that "there is nothing like the commitment we believe is required".

He added: "The chancellor's fingerprints are all over these documents and not in a good way. So we've waited months for the heat and buildings strategy - it is a massive let down."

The Commons Environmental Audit Committee suggests the strategy is "yet to meet the ambition" on heat pumps.

"As yet, there is little acknowledgment that effective use of heat pumps requires buildings to be properly insulated. Our Committee's evidence highlighted that insulation costs can double the current cost of a heat pump for many of the19 million homes that are older and have an EPC rating of less than C," the committee's Conservative chairman Philip Dunne said.

Shaun Spiers, executive director at Green Alliance, said "mandating car manufacturers to sell more clean vehicles, supporting the switch to heat pumps and cleaning up our energy grid are essential steps to cutting emissions over the coming decade".

He added: "But we need a more ambitious response from the chancellor at the spending review to turn these promises into jobs, growth and benefits to consumers - and if the government truly wants to level up the country, we'll need much more investment once the dust has settled on the COP26 Glasgow climate summit."

David Wright, chief engineer at National Grid, said the government needs to set out what tackling climate change "means in practice".

"We're at a critical stage in the journey where net zero is possible with the technologies and opportunities we have today and, in order to deliver on this, we have to accelerate and ramp up efforts to deploy long-term solutions at scale," he said.

Meanwhile, Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at LSE's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said "it remains to be seen whether the scale and ambition of the strategy is sufficient to attract the private investments necessary to realise a credible pathway to net zero by 2050".

One interesting point picked up by someone - maybe Faisal Islam - is that it looks like they're preparing the ground to transition to a "road use tax" to plug the huge gap that will be left from fuel duty (apparently worth about £37 billion a year to the revenue). I think that makes sense. It's going to be politically contentious

As I say I think most of the low-hanging fruit has been got in the UK, so it's now going to be decisions with costs and consequences that need to be carefully managed and mitigated. Which is this government's forte

[Josquius]

Oh. And Johnson needs a huge slap for his jokey dog whistles about sandled police kicking down the door and murdering you with a carrot.

I'm all for a road use tax.
Not sure if I ever did post it here but an idea I've been musing is a tax on driving your car more than a certain distance from home.
For day to day life car use is unavoidable. Using it to go across the country is not.

The key challenge in any of this sort of thing is of course to make sure urban dwellers are suitably dissuaded from the luxury of a car whilst rural people aren't punished for being poor by being made even poorer. Whilst at the same time we don't want to incentivise people to move to the country.
What a tangled knot it is.

Who would have thought one of blairs biggest failures would turn out to be the massed tram building plans. Its insane how much more expensive doing anything like that is now vs 20 years ago.

[Sheilbh]

The key challenge in any of this sort of thing is of course to make sure urban dwellers are suitably dissuaded from the luxury of a car whilst rural people aren't punished for being poor by being made even poorer. Whilst at the same time we don't want to incentivise people to move to the country.
What a tangled knot it is.

Just move to the city then - they're not being punished for being poor but for living in the wrong place

But also who owns or lives in older draughty housing stock with gas heating and cookers. It's not going to be cheap or easy fixing that and it needs to be fair. As I say its difficult.

[Grey Fox]

In other UK news they announce 5000 quid funding for getting a heat pump.
All sorts of catches and probably still not economical but I'm intruiged.

How cold does it get in your neck of the woods? IIRC They have a 1:3 up to 5 ratio.

[Josquius]

The key challenge in any of this sort of thing is of course to make sure urban dwellers are suitably dissuaded from the luxury of a car whilst rural people aren't punished for being poor by being made even poorer. Whilst at the same time we don't want to incentivise people to move to the country.
What a tangled knot it is.

Just move to the city then - they're not being punished for being poor but for living in the wrong place

But also who owns or lives in older draughty housing stock with gas heating and cookers. It's not going to be cheap or easy fixing that and it needs to be fair. As I say its difficult.

Housing in the city is more expensive.
Remote towns with crap public transport are all many can afford.
It's really note worthy how much property prices differ between connected towns and unconnected ones.