AliasAggers wrote:Don't you care about the type of life you are leaving your grandchildren, then?
More than most Aggers. But it is not what I care about or how much I know about what is going on. It is what I can do about it. Essentially I can do nothing. Because successive Governments have not given me the choice of doing something.
I can't even vote for a political party who will solve the issues. Greens are mad about recycling. Glass recycling in the UK costs 100m tonnes of CO2 more than dumping the glass in the ground and making new glass. Labour have anything but an integrated plan. Lib Dem's are all for offshore wind. I have news for them, I was talking on a climate forum two weeks ago and the entire wind input for the entire UK was about the input from half a dozen of the river projects WM and I are talking about. No wind, no wind powered electricity. As for the Tories? They're businessmen. When there is money to spend they will toss a little on the renewables pile, but, otherwise, they're going to do the minimum they can.
I have done the one thing I can do. I have straightened my Grandchildren out about what is happening and told them that it is their lives this generation is screwing up and that they need to start working to fix it. Given the voting habits of the average teenager, my advice is not exactly welcome, but because they respect me they did at least listen.
Rather annoyingly, the UK is almost completely in line with the Paris accord on climate change already.
The Paris accord stipulated a 40% reduction in greenhouse emissions, from 1990 levels, by 2030. A Nytimes Article states
Under the Paris deal, each country put forward a proposal to curtail its greenhouse-gas emissions between now and 2030. But no major industrialized country is currently on track to fulfill its pledge
It then goes on to call the EU an "Industrialised country" but points to the UK as one which is "making progress" for the EU. The Nytimes points to an article
which tracks UK CO2 emissions, especially the reduction in coal fired power.
What does It say?
Carbon Brief analysis shows the UK’s CO2 emissions fell by 5.8% in 2016, after a record 52% drop in coal use.
The reduction would leave UK CO2 emissions some 36% below 1990 levels.
Erm, right, so only 4% to go with 12 YEARS LEFT. Germany, on the other hand, is expected to miss their target with 12 more years to go.
But further it says.
UK carbon budgets cover a basket of six greenhouse gas emissions, not just CO2. Carbon Brief estimates that UK greenhouse gas emissions in 2016 were 42% below 1990 levels. Note that this estimate is much more uncertain than the CO2-only figures.
So, in essence, it is likely that the UK is already compliant. But are we resting on our laurels? Nope, we are putting in
Biomass all over the place and continuing working on renewables. However if we are ever going to get off our hydrocarbon energy usage, we're going to need Hinckley point C and at least two more Nuclear around the country. If you look at
Gridwatch, it is crystal clear that if we want to get off gas electricity generation we're going to have to replace it with high volume baseload power and that doesn't give us much options.... Unless someone comes up with a good fusion reactor in the next decade or so.
why do I say that when I'm radically opposed to using Nuclear that way? Because the research and money for HDR geothermal and wave power and tidal rise fall (not flow like the Swansea project), is simply not there.
So, in the end, what can I do. As it stands today, if I were to move to electric vehicle, I would just be burning gas instead of diesel. OK the engine would be about 50% more efficient so I would burn "less" gas, but it would not be as clean as the "electric" tag it was stuck with.
I shall continue to contribute to the climate forums as ever. I know that Obama's speech writers stole my words from Climate Progress, where I was actually defending him, so they are watching, but we shall see if I can do more than I already have.
When I was at the UOL, I managed to get in touch with a scientist who was researching geothermal. The only reason he responded to me was because I had a university email address. He called and we discussed some of my ideas. Whilst he thought that the steam method they currently use was better than my ideas, although not without merit, when I explained that my idea could be pushed right into the 800C rocks of a volcanic magma chamber he became quite interested. However it is highly unlikely that this will ever be researched. All research grants follow well trodden paths unless you can get independent research funding first to blaze the trail.
I will continue to beat the drum, as will WM who petitions his MP, but, in reality, there is not that much I can do.
by AliasAggers » 06 Aug 2018, 21:37 
