Showing posts with label geo-engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label geo-engineering. Show all posts

Stop burning fossil fuels now: there is no CO2 'technofix', scientists warn

Researchers have demonstrated that even if a geoengineering solution to CO2 emissions could be found, it wouldn’t be enough to save the oceans

German researchers have demonstrated once again that the best way to limit climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels now.

In a “thought experiment” they tried another option: the future dramatic removal of huge volumes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This would, they concluded, return the atmosphere to the greenhouse gas concentrations that existed for most of human history – but it wouldn’t save the oceans.

That is, the oceans would stay warmer, and more acidic, for thousands of years, and the consequences for marine life could be catastrophic.

The research, published in Nature Climate Change today delivers yet another demonstration that there is so far no feasible “technofix” that would allow humans to go on mining and drilling for coal, oil and gas (known as the “business as usual” scenario), and then geoengineer a solution when climate change becomes calamitous.

Read more here.

How can we stop global warming?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

When most people ask, “How can we stop global warming?” they aren’t really asking what they pretend they’re asking. They are instead asking, “How can we stop global warming without stopping the burning of oil and gas, without stopping the industrial infrastructure, without stopping this omnicidal system?”
The answer: you can’t.

stopWe cannot continue with the status quo and an ever growing economy and nuclear power and electric cars are not going to help us one bit here either.

Nuclear power simply is not safe unless and until the day that we can use fusion instead of fission but that day is still so far off that it, more than likely, is never going to arrive.

The electric car, touted as the answer to the ICE and everyone wishing to continue with personal motoring, is also no answer at all for, in fact, it emissions may not come from the vehicle itself but from the production of both the car, the battery and the electricity used with which to charge the battery.

Governments the world over and also the green movement per se are not prepared to tell the people that the way they have been living is going to be history or they are going to be history. Mankind has but two choices, to adapt and change or to die.

Industry has to be brought down to a level of production where it but produces for what people need and not what industry produces and then wishes to sell to the people by means of advertising suggesting to people that if they have but that product they will be happy ever after.

Production needs to be localized so that the “factories” and workshops produce and sell only in a nor or less local area supplying the needs of the people. And the same goes for agriculture, for food production.

As far as personal transportation goes the age of motoring, unless we really wish to commit ecocide and thus suicide, is history and we need to use other ways of getting about, ways that are tried and tested and have been used for centuries.

It is not just carbon-dioxide (CO2) emissions that are behind climate change. Other aerial and atmospheric pollution is equally a culprit and the warnings were issued already in the 1960s and early 1970s by those people wrote off as hippies and new agers. However, they were right after all. However, governments and others love to play with CO2 as almost the only kind that may be the causal agent of climate change because they have invented this lovely system of indulgences call carbon credits and carbon certificates and even a stock exchange for them.

The soot that is causing the glacial melt in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges has been renamed to “brown carbon” so that they can still play with those indulgences. It is soot, people, and it comes out of the chimneys of the factories, settles on the glaciers and thus causing them to melt by absorbing rather than reflecting the rays of the sun, thus causing the melt.

Mankind has to change and adapt or will, invariably, die as the Earth will no longer be able to support life. Thus, if we want to survive and give future generations of people and other life a chance then we must change our ways and do so pronto. Ideally yesterday or the day before even.

Those of us who advocate this are hated by the people and especially the governments, and first and foremost by those in the developed world. The former don't want to hear it because they want to believe their governments that life will go on as it is and the governments don't want us to tell the truth because the don not want the populace to be stirred. The mere advocating of the need to change can, to some extent, get one branded as a “domestic terrorist”.

But we must continue to warn for, unless the people do wake up and understand that stopping climate change cannot be done by retaining the constant-growth economy and the personal motoring and all that, we all will be in serious problems and, in the end, the Planet will no longer able to support life, at least not human life.

In order so that the people do not realize how critical the situation has become with oil many governments in the developed world have brought strategic reserves of oil (and gas) on stream to keep the prices artificially at a lower level than they would be in reality.

In 2011 the world used 40% more oil than it produced and forecast, though amended later, was for 2012 to be 60% more than production. The recession saw to it though that it was ONLY 50% above production. Now it does not take a mathematical genius to work out that that – somehow – does not compute and that reserves were brought into play. But, reserves are just that... reserves... and they will run out sooner or later.

The hope is now being placed on tar sands oil and shale oil and -gas with claims of enough oil for the next 50 to 100 years... That would mean another 50 to 100 years of emissions of various poisons killing the Earth entirely. All in the name of progress or what?

I guess that governments also believe, like Professor Hawkins, that we have to abandon the Earth and find another inhabitable Planet (to destroy). Reality check! There is no other planet that can sustain life in our solar system. None. Maybe they believe that in the next 50 to 100 years they can find one, eh?

We need to change and should have done so already yesterday and that means that we have to get used to a different way of living than that that we have been used to – well the majority of people in the developed world – for a rather long time already.

We have to go back to ways of our ancestors and not just as regards to personal transportation but also as regards to production of goods and food and their distribution. The way we live and work and much more.

That does not, necessarily, mean that we will no longer have electricity or such as renewables can provide that for us, and also cooking gas via methane digestion, but it has to be brought down to a local level of the home and the current and voltage used must change. And we first and foremost must also reduce our energy consumption, as we must reduce consumption as a whole.

Personal transportation will no longer be the motorcar but Shank's pony and the bicycle and, for longer distance, the likes of public transport, in the form of buses and trains.

When we bring everything down to a local level, or almost local level, then commuting long distances will be a thing of the past as will be the out-of-town super- and hypermarkets and shopping malls, then there will be no need for all this traveling about.

We also cannot stop climate change by geo-engineering, by spraying chemicals into the atmosphere and creating artificial clouds. Those may stop the rays of the sun reaching the Earth and heating it up but they also change photosynthesis and thus reduce food production. Hello! Is everyone stupid? It would appear so. Stop playing G-d! We need to change, period! And we need to do that NOW!

© 2013

U.N. urged to freeze climate geo-engineering projects

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

In October 2010 the United Nations was asked to impose a moratorium on "geo-engineering" projects such as artificial volcanoes and vast cloud-seeding schemes to fight climate change, by some green groups, fearing they could harm nature and mankind.

The risks are too great said a group of envoys from many countries at a major U.N. meeting in Japan aimed at combating increasing losses of plant and animal species because the impacts of manipulating nature on a vast scale were not fully known.

Some countries regard geo-engineering projects costing billions of dollars as a way to control climate change by cutting the amount of sunlight hitting the earth or soaking up excess greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon dioxide.

"It's absolutely inappropriate for a handful of governments in industrialized countries to make a decision to try geo-engineering without the approval of all the world's support," said Pat Mooney, from Canada-headquartered advocacy organization ETC Group.

“They shouldn't proceed with real-life, in-the-environment experimentation or the deployment of any geo-engineering until there is a consensus in the United Nations that this is okay."

Some conservation groups say geo-engineering is a way for some governments and companies to get out of taking steps to slash planet-warming emissions.

Geo-engineering is nothing but playing G-d and this is not something that we should even attempt.

If it comes to reducing the impact of climate change we need to reduce emissions and NOT just CO2 emissions for it is not just CO2 that is the problem. Other pollutants are much more dangerous for the environment. So, why the constant stress on carbon?

The answer to that is simple. Carbon can – now – be traded, just like gold, silver, coffee, grain. Something that cannot be done with soot and other pollutants.

Spraying questionable aerosols and other geo-engineering methods, which is in all cases but untested territory, should not even been attempted.

Cloud-seeding has been used, I know, for many decades but I also know the problems that have been caused when there was no control of the floods of rain released. In addition to that we have still to-date no idea how safe the silver iodine and other agents used are actually in the environment.

The agencies that employ this – officially on our behalf – are playing G-d and have no idea what they actually may release when they do so.

We cannot play wound with our environment and with Nature in such a way. We are no the Creator and we have no knowledge of what results our actions might have. Stop geo-engineering now!

© 2013