Should we Colonise Mars or Fix Earth?

Should we colonise mars or fix earth? 

I believe that we should do our best to fix earth as it is the planet we’ve been given and we shouldn’t try to run away from our problems. We would not be able to fix it completely but we can at least try. It’s our fault that we have to fix or leave earth and if we go to mars it will be inhospitable and we would just ruin that planet too. Even if we did move to mars it would be like that scene in Loki where the rich people are boarding a train to leave the planet as the moon is about to crash into it, and the poor are waiting in a cue yelling about their children, there would be no way to move the whole population and how would they decide who to move since they couldn’t? I believe that we should learn to adapt to the planet that we’ve been given, we should change as the planet changes. Otherwise the human population will not survive climate change. If the past generations had taken better care of the planet this wouldn’t be happening right now, if all humans had taken care of the planet then we wouldn’t have to think about questions like these. But we do. And since we might have to move to mars we should consider it as it may be our only option. Maybe two family’s will move to Mars to restart the population, probably Elon Musks and whoever else is wealthy enough to buy seats on the rocket or maybe by the time it has become necessary humans will have left earth because of advances in technology, like in Valerian: The city of a thousand planets. 

Home Sweet Home

No one knows the future! 

Maybe we will fix the planet, maybe we won’t, but either way we have to start doing something.I believe that we should do our best to fix earth as it is the planet we’ve been given and we shouldn’t try to run away from our problems. We would not be able to fix it completely but we can at least try. It’s our fault that we have to fix or leave earth and if we go to mars it will be inhospitable and we would just ruin that planet too. Even if we did move to mars it would be like that scene in Loki where the rich people are boarding a train to leave the planet as the moon is about to crash into it, and the poor are waiting in a cue yelling about their children, there would be no way to move the whole population and how would they decide who to move since they couldn’t? I believe that we should learn to adapt to the planet that we’ve been given, we should change as the planet changes. Otherwise the human population will not survive climate change. If the past generations had taken better care of the planet this wouldn’t be happening right now, if all humans had taken care of the planet then we wouldn’t have to think about questions like these. But we do. And since we might have to move to mars we should consider it as it may be our only option. Maybe two family’s will move to Mars to restart the population, probably Elon Musks and whoever else is wealthy enough to buy seats on the rocket or maybe by the time it has become necessary humans will have left earth because of advances in technology, like in Valerian: The city of a thousand planets. No one knows the future, maybe we will fix the planet, maybe we won’t, but either way we have to start doing something.

Written by "O" aged 14 

Life Cycle Assessment for Amazon Climate Pledge

Climate Change Notes on Boris's Speech - 06/10/2021

Climate Change Content Boris's Party Conference Speech on the 6th October 2021

Below are a few notes notes of Boris's party conference speech, where he discusses topics related to climate change. 

It's slim pickings, as you might expect from a party who regularly shout about "their" targets and commitments to zero carbon, whilst doing very little to augment change outside the change that is automatically delivered by economic forces. 

Protesters

In reference to  Insulate Britain Protesters and their M25 protest. He dubs them a nuisance and that they should be placed in "well-insulated" police cells. 

Comments: Cringe worthy. If Boris had been shown to act meaningfully on climate change, then these protests would not be happening. Does he imagine that members of the public enjoy sitting in roads, being abused by drivers, and with criminal records earned from their activities, damage their employability. The suffragettes, remember them? They had no choice but to protest, it is the same with this new wave of suffragettes. 

Hydrogen Buses

"Some" Buses will run on hydrogen. This is a clean air initiative, and may well be more carbon intensive that using diesel. 

Rewilding

Boris makes reference to the rewilding of Britain with a figure 30% of land area, and 10's of millions of trees. Beavers reintroduced to certain areas. 

Comments: This will only happen if it is made economically possible. New farm subsidy replacement ELMs may offer some routes for farmers to rewild, but it will not happen quickly enough to make a meaningful contribution towards climate change. Trees only meaningfully begin to remove carbon 5 years after they have been planted, and it takes 10 to 15 years for them to get up to speed. 

COP

"Can we keep alive the ambition of paris, to stop the planet heating by more than 1.5 degrees. The government cant do it alone, and taxpayers certainly can't do it alone, the other day I took a boat out in to the Moray Firth to sea this aquatic forest of turbines towering over water like redwoods of california."

Comments: This reference to wind energy is run for around 2 minutes, and then Bris flips back to perceived successes of vaccine roll out. Wind now makes up about 25% of UK grid energy (3.4% for Solar). The reason we have 25% wind is economic it is the cheapest form of generation capacity. 

Environmental Consultants Bristol 

How to Deal with a Climate Change Denier

How to Deal with a Climate Change Denier

Push them off a cliff. . . . just kidding. Maybe.

As more and more science adds to the consensus that man made climate change is a real thing Climate Change Deniers because less and less commonly encountered. But when you do come across these oddities, you can bet they are:

• Paid by Oil Lobby
• Will-fully Ignorant
• Just Trying to Annoy You

I all cases this makes them appalling human beings, and you are unlikely to change their minds. What you need is the NASA CO2 Graph. It rocks for the following reasons.

• Its a picture.
• Its shows how weird things are getting.
• Its from NASA

The last point is likely to sit  well with any denier, as they probably like big noisy things that look like penises such as space rockets.

I saw Professor Brian Cox use this graph to very good effect in a TV debate some time ago. There we had some moronic buffoon towing his oil paymasters line, on how the data didn't stack up etc. Well this graph, got a round of applause from the audience, and the dude stopped talking. Amen.

These days it is easy to look this up on a phone or tablet, and show it to the offender, although my personal favourite is to print on to a baseball bat and hit them on the head with it. If the offender is a co-worker why not super glue this graph to their desk?

Misinformation   

Deniers have often been fed on a diet of carefully crafted misinformation. Oil and Gas Companies have known for decades that global warming was likely to be a real thing. 

Further Reading:

Exxon Scientists Predicted Global Warming, Even as Company Cast Doubts, Study Finds

Just 90 companies are to blame for most climate change, this 'carbon accountant' says

ExxonMobil Claims Shift on Climate But Continues to Fund Climate Science Deniers

Sunlight & Daylight Assessment

 Desktop Study

Why we are Not Doing Anything About Climate Change?

Why we are Not Doing Anything About Climate Change? 

It may seam that we are doing nothing about climate change, things are happening but not quickly enough.

Who is Doing the Most?

First off we are doing something about climate change. Countries get together to discuss the issue, we describe the problem, we discuss the solution, we set targets. All this is doing something and in some countries meaningful reduction sin CO2 emissions have been made.

So the west is leading the world in reducing CO2 emissions . . .  .no not really. We may be showing the greatest percentage decreases, but compared to huge manufacturing nations such as China and India, we do not create very much CO2, and what we do create is easier to decarbonise.

Quick Example: It is easy to switch a heating system in an office block from oil to gas and save carbon in the process, we could also add solar panels to the roof and reduce further. It is far for diifcult to decarbonise a steel works, or a cement factory.

What is Getting in Way? 

Most people (including politicians) are fully aware that climate change is real and require urgent attention. Unfortunately there are some powerful players who stand to loose a lot of money if we stop using oil and gas. Who, the oil and gas companies.

BP (British Petroleum) for example runs advertising campaigns telling it customers how green it is as company, whilst spending over $50,000,000 (50 million) a year on lobbying the government to benefit the sales of oil and gas.

In total, just in the UK oil firms spend $200,000,000 (200 million) a year on influencing politions to use more oil, and prevent the removal of oil subsidies.

Oil Subsidies? What? Really?

So world wide tax payers contribute Trillions of Dollars to subsidise oil. In the UK alone tax payers contribute $12,000,000,000 (12 billion) a year to help reduce the cost of oil and gas.

In the same year we give only $9,000,000,000 (9 billion) a year in subsidies to renewable. Now it is worth pointing out at this point that just throw subsides at renewable may not fix the the problem, nor might it be the best solution.

For example energy efficiency measures such as subsidising loft insulation, or offset measures such as Tree Planting are far far cheaper then renewable energy infrastructures subsidies.

But the fact remains that by subsidising oil and gas we are making oil or gas a more competitively price energy source, which will slow the uptake of renewables. 

What to Do?

We need to act quickly and choose the best value options for decarbonising and offsetting our emissions. Efficiency measure such as altering diet, and turning down heating etc. will only get us so far.

 

Not all carbon saving measures cost the same amount so it is important that we subsidise the correct ones.  The recently defunct FITs scheme (paying subsidies to electricity generators for renewable energy), cost around £250 t/CO2e, whilst tree planting in a developing country can deliver the same effect for £3 t/CO2e.

This is not to say the Solar or Wind are bad options, but the administration of the subsidies in this case was not good value for money, in term of CO2 reduction per unit of currency.

Desktop Study

A Political Response to Climate Change

A Political Response to Climate Change

Below set out is a political response to climate change. Often climate change is sold by politicians as a problem, when really it is an opportunity. Change can bring around opportunity. However, at present politicians are using a sticking plaster approach; we are placing restrictions on a system that was developed in era of carbon intensive growth, and the below considerations should be made, listed in order of importance.

1 – Swap GDP for Citizen Satisfaction Metric

The first requirement is to change the way a nation’s success is measured. At present this is represented by % GDP over a typical year. This metric would be adequate is we lived in a limitless environment, where resources and space will never run out, but we do not. We live on a spec of rock, drifting in an indifferent vacuum. We can rely on a metric that relies on constant growth.
The metric that needs to be considered in any political response to climate change is "satisfaction" of the populace. This after all is the metric used by most other entities to gauge there performance. It will also reduce our reliance on growth as a form of self-validation.
This switch from a growth based metric, to a condition based metric will free up politicians to make hundreds of choices that would damage the current growth based system:

2 - Reduce Birth Rates 

 Humans are the root cause of accelerated climate change. Yet world population is growing rapidly. This is policy will be the most unpleasant and difficult policy to implement. A birth control policy was implemented in China for many years, however China is not a democracy and this decision could be made without public consent. How can for example a two child policy be presented as acceptable?
It is very likely that a family with more then 2 children will be experienced to greater stresses, whether this be in terms of time allocation of financial. This need to be researched. Research should look in to negative outcomes arising from higher number of children:
•    Likelihood of Parental
•    DivorceLikelihood of Bankruptcy
•    Likelihood of Mental Illness
There have been great strides made in stopping people from smoking by advertising its negative effects. The same principals should be adopted with an aim to forming a policy for reduced birth rates.
After data has been collected for 2 years on the above “carrot” approach a “stick” approach may be warranted where financial penalties are introduced. This will need careful research.

3 – Worker Owned Entities

There will be vast numbers of capital enterprises that will need to be undertaken in order to action required polices. The current system whereby all projects are carefully gauged on the basis of financial risk, will not be appropriate.
Works will be undertaken by worker owned cooperatives. Individuals with experience of project management should be appointed as managing members of such entities and they will undertake all normal resource management based on the current. A small group of founding individuals will face an interview and aptitude process in order to bid for government funding. Works will be undertaken between these founding individuals and the government on the basis of a standard contract template, where by pay grades are set out in advance, and all employees and directors of companies receive an equal performance based bonus.
Funding will be made available via quantitative easing. Negative impacts currently associated with this technique will be lessened owing to new metrics as explained in section 1.
These working groups could be allocated to any number of projects ranging from delivery of energy infrastructure to support roles for regulatory enforcers, to deal with additional burdens.

4 – 100% Renewables over 10 Year Period

It is imperative that we move quickly to establish a 100% renewable energy infrastructure. With full policy support this could be implemented in less than 10 years. This is massive undertaking and the opportunities for employment are also massive. Countries should move to undertake manufacture of PV panels and Turbines (Sea or Wind) domestically so as to provide employment from these new industries. Regulatory hurdles which may prevent renewables projects from coming to fruition, should be lessened but not removed as these serve as a valuable scoping tool.
Renewable Energy projects should be chosen on the basis of the carbon pay back. Shortest should proceed first, or a pass mark could be introduced such as “any project under 10 year carbon payback time”.

5 – Adequate Energy Storage over 10 Years

Owing to fluctuations in output from solar and wind renewables. It will be required that energy storage infrastructure is increased.

6 – CO2 Removal  

With a 100% renewable energy infrastructure, there will be a myriad of opportunity for geo engineering. For example at present we would not consider capturing carbon from the atmosphere using mechanical means as it would not result in a carbon saving, but with 100% renewables the carbon intensity of this operation would be zero, and as such a feasible solution. This could provide long term employment.

7 – Transport

Whilst there are many options for road based transport in terms of battery powering. The largest hurdle to overcome is air travel. It may not be possible to power an aeroplane with anything other than liquid fuels. However, pending the delivery of 100% renewable, it should be possible to manufacture hydrogen fuels, which have a negligible carbon footprint.




Environmental Policy Consultants London

Tory Hatchet Job on Low Carbon Initiatives Continues

Tory Hatchet Job on Low Carbon Initiatives Continues

George Osborne and the party he represents continued their hatchet job on the UK low carbon economy yesterday with deep cuts revealed in key areas following the chancellors comprehensive spending review. The only logical explanation for this thorough and wide spread merge, must stem from fossil powered lobbying. The Conservatives are normally described as "the nasty party" but when it comes to the Low Carbon agenda, they are just plain weak.

Recent moves demonstrate the Tory's deep lack of understanding of climate change and the urgency required in dealing with carbon emissions. It also sends out a confusing message to the world community ahead of the Paris Climate Change Talks, with potential to inflict cumulative damages from lost confidence, which will resonate world wide.

• DECC spending cut 22% over next five years
• £1bn Prise for Carbon Capture and Storage Scraped 
• Renewable Heat Incentive cut by 700 million

Osborne has also pledged to lower household bills by £30 a year. Energy saving measures are suggested, although it is likely these will be no more popular than the "Green Deal" which must be considered a failure. Presumably then the savings on Energy Bills will come from the continued subsidisation of coal fired power stations, whilst renewable energy subsides are slashed.

So we see the continued trend of the last few months as we the Tory bend over backwards to help big business maintain their strangled hold on the energy sector, whilst ignoring the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is on track to produce dangerous warming effects beyond the 2 degree rise many consider should be a maximum.

The mind boggles. How short sighted and ignorant can a government be. Very.

Where can I find evidence to support global warming?

Is Man-made Global Warming all a big Con?

Bank of England Boss: "Catastrophic Climte Risks"

Bank of England Boss: "Catastrophic Climate Risks"

James Carney the Bank of Englands Boss has warned of catastrophic climate risks, and the need to protect the UK's economy from the cumulative impacts of climate change.

The Governor of the BoE raised these concerns during a London dinner event held for bankers. But his views are backed up with reporting carried out by the Bank of England.

He has warned that many of or top businesses are in "carbon rish" sectors and that the the required decarbonsitaion of the economy could lead to to a shift, with these corner stone businesses becoming less sucessful.

Investment is green tech needs to quadrupedal said Carnry, and that it could no longer afford to be considered a niche market.

Watch the video of the speech below.

Full details at Bank of England.

Environmental Consultants London