About: Former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres says Australia needs to ditch coal | Matter of Fact
Stopping global warming is sold as being a big boost for the economy. Not only do we have to stop using fossil fuel, but we also need to downsize the economy. Unfortunately, talking about a « décroissance » is heretic, despite the fact that earth ressources are finite.
Coal will collapse in value as a commodity over the next 20 years, as Christiana Figueres pointed out. If Australia does not start moving away from it now, it's economy, as well as it's climate, will be toast. It won't be able to grow food for domestic consumption or export due to climate change, and it won't be able to earn the necessary foreign exchange it needs from an energy source that belongs to last century.
Are we about to see the "Lucky Country" turn out to be a notable loser of the 21st century?
The Paris Climate Agreement is best to be described as signing over full ownership of our planet to global elites. Humans will be forced to pay from cradle to grave for living on planet earth.
There is only one way to go, and that is building nuclear powerplants.
Do what you want ! Temp. is already at 1.75* , 4* and more are in the mix. "IT'S TO LATE GAME OVER" we can not fix it!
Methane is actually 155 times worse than CO2 short term. However if methane is constantly being replenished in the atmosphere then it is 155 times more potent even 100 years from now.
Jet streams always occur where the polar air mass meets the tropical air mass and that is also where storms occur.
The rule of thumb is the stronger the temperature difference between the air masses, the faster the jet streams. The faster the jet streams the straighter they travel.
Warm the Arctic and the jet streams weaken and meander more and it brings the storms with them.
2 major feedback loops are now happening in the Arctic. 1 you have mentioned which is the underwater methane hydrates. The other is the thawing permafrost. I can remember as a kid when my Grade 9 teacher told the class that under no circumstances can the permafrost be allowed to thaw.
Now we know why.
The scientists from the Arctic Council said 20% of the permafrost will thaw by 2040. To the average person that doesn't sound so bad. To a scientist that means death to the world.https://www.vox.com/2017/9/6/16062174/permafrost-melting
Our current greenhouse gases warms the Earth by approximately 32°C. If the Earth had no greenhouse gases, the planet would be frozen and unable to support life. Water at the equator would be frozen solid and the atmosphere would be too cold for clouds to form.
So too little can be very bad but the same applies for too much.
The permafrost holds twice the amount of greenhouse gases as we currently have in our atmosphere. a 20% thaw will raise global average temperatures by at least 12.8°C.
The same report also stated that all of the permafrost will thaw before 2100. Atmospheric greenhouse gases will triple.
It's safe to say that we will not survive that.
The recent IPCC report is dire to say the least but it is also watered down. They ignored the feedback loops in their report.
Many scientists are calling them out on how inaccurate the report is.
The IPCC report says we have 12 years to act but the science says that time for action has already passed or the amount of action needed at this point is so massive of an undertaking that there is zero chance that it can happen in the time we have left.
All of the world's carbon capture technology last year only removed a little less than 40 million tonnes of CO2 from our emissions. We emitted 54 billion tonnes of CO2 last year.
In order to make a difference we not only would have to remove more than what we emit but also remove what the feedback loops emit. We would probably need to remove as much as 100 billion tonnes per year to make a difference in Global Warming. That is a massive undertaking. It has taken many years just to build what we currently have and the weather extremes are destroying much of the infrastructure we have now.
In a few more years, building the needed carbon capture infrastructure will no longer be possible because they will be destroyed by extreme weather events as fast as they are being built.
We can't stop burning the fossil fuels because it has a beneficial side effect where the pollution it causes is helping to cool the planet. It's not enough since the warming of the planet is much more than the cooling but that cooling effect is buying us some time. Over North America the pollution blocks 10% of the sunlight. Over Russia and China it is blocked 30%.https://vimeo.com/284649348
It's a catch 22.
The burning of fossil fuels is both heating and cooling the planet.
If we don't stop burning the fuel, we heat up the planet but if we stop then the pollution falls out and the planet warms up even faster (within weeks).
So we have to keep burning the fossil fuels and build Carbon Capture on such a massive scale that it is impossible to do in such a short time.
Scientists have been warning us for decades that there would be a cost if we waited to act. Now the cost is our extinction because we ignored the warnings from the scientists.
Here is a breakdown of the IPCC report by various scientists https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/10/ipcc-keeps-feeding-the-addiction.html?fbclid=IwAR1ImdFF2KAzwHX4zLaLGHGVLflRVFJo2QdxaFldFPqAoJLesRFtbiasm8k
Global warming bullshit must rate as the biggest con we've seen in our generation. We need more coal powered power stations now.
UN should mind it's own business. They want more nuclear power plants built so they can use Australian land to dump garbage that doesn't break down for thousands of years and destroys lives. There is a method of cleaning coal but big business will not do it because of profit margins. Also a Prime Minister said no to wind power because it was ugly.
If it's so good for the economy then we don't need to see your annoying face every two seconds.
"The prime minister says... The prime minister says..." Who cares you ignorant fool, think for yourself for once in your life instead of parroting your greedy politicians. People are so dumb.
Think and read people.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf …
The UN stated, "A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet
"A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use."https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/veganism-environmental-impact-planet-reduced-plant-based-diet-humans-study-a8378631.html
To be honest everyone. . I highly recommended you to really lissen to what Christiana Figueres is saying.. she is spot on the topic in every way I highly Respect that woman.. and if you're interested please hear Leonardo DiCaprio speech at the United Nations it's to be found on YouTube everyone.. 💕🍃🌍🍃💕✌💕
Well the US has cancelled our membership in the Paris Hoax Accord (PHA). We're firing up the coal plants to save the planet. Yes I said save the planet, because Co2 is plant food, not pollution. If you lower the Co2 levels to 200 PPM, 97% of the trees and plants will die. Co2 has a specific gravity of 1.5 and air has a sg of 1.0. This means Co2 is heavier than air and cannot float up and create a heat trapping canopy. God made Co2 to be heavier than air so it would hover at ground level and feed the plants. Co2 also doesn't mix well with air, and we have warnings in the US for people going into storm drains and caves for the risk of suffocation from Co2 displacing the air. Even if Co2 could float up and create a canopy, it has never been proven to have heat trapping capabilities. These so called experts, know nothing about science or the carbon cycle. If you look at NASA's research you'll see that tens of thousands of years ago, the earth thrived at Co2 levels of 3,000 PPM and higher. Right now the earth is extremely low at 400 PPM. These morons promoting this stupid theory don't know that the sun controls our temperatures on earth. In 2011 we witnessed some of the largest solar flares ever seen on the sun, and the very next day we had record high temperatures across the US.
This has been a WW2 lvl threat for 50y now, do people really not understand why...?
If the temp increase to the point that the permafrost's melt, there will be so much methane released that oceans can start to boil at the equator turning the planet into Venus...
We need to dramatically change how to think about our energy future. The benefits of fossil fuels in terms of human flourishing need to be weighed carefully against the environmental impacts of fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels are directly responsible for our present high standard of living. Where there is access to cheap reliable plentiful energy from fossil fuels we see life expectancy increasing by more than 40%, an eradication of starvation and malnutrition, and people are no longer living in the grinding poverty present in most of human history. Therefore it is anti-human and immoral to restrict access to fossil fuels by means of carbon taxes or other punitive carbon policies.
A summary of the best available climate science is as follows: The historical and geological record suggests recent changes in the climate over the past century are within the bounds of natural variability. Human influences on the climate (largely the accumulation of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion) are a physically small (1%) effect on a complex, chaotic, multicomponent and multiscale system. Unfortunately, the data and our understanding are insufficient to usefully quantify the climate’s response to human influences. However, even as human influences have quadrupled since 1950, severe weather phenomena and sea level rise show no significant trends attributable to them. Projections of future climate and weather events rely on models demonstrably unfit for the purpose. As a result, rising levels of CO2 do not obviously pose an immediate, let alone imminent, threat to the earth’s climate.
Fossil fuels drive economic growth and jobs. Fossil fuels provide more than 80% of the world's energy demand and will continue to do so into 2050. Renewable energy can only provide a small percentage of world energy. Proposals under the Paris Agreement to drastically reduce fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions would devastate Canada's and Australia's economy. Reducing GHG emissions to 80% less than 1990 levels by 2050 implies that living standards would be reduced to that of the 1800's.
Man made climate chance is a hoax. Its about political power and control, sheeple.
You cant compromise with climate change !
Other countries in the world need to mind there own businesses every country should burn coal wood there garbage or throw it in the oceans there is no fixing the planets oceans or lands we have screwed it up
So go ahead and dump your stuff where ever you want
The oceans can’t be repaired what we take from the oceans is poison from us the land is the same
The 6 families that run the world don’t care
Any time any one UN says something, I would follow the dollar and the favors.
You All don't give a flying flip about anything but your fame and power.
This lady is so full of it, the same jokers having her puppet butt out here talking about eminent destruction are the very ones capable of causing the destruction, so what is it that's really going on there Codex? Whose mission in agenda without the people consent,... passed this off as news?