Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

Technology, Science and the Environment.

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
samlcfc

samlcfc

Posted
Posted

Came across a youtube video the other day which described the likely collision of two relatively nearby stars, and how it would result in a red nova event.

 

Here is a National Geographic article about the prediction.

 

It's apparently the first time scientists have been able to predict such an event before it happens, and this one would actually be visible with the naked eye if it occurs.

 

I've no idea what scientists will be able to learn if it does happen, but given they'll be able to study the entire thing from here on in, I'm sure it'll make for an interesting read once they've done their stuff.

 

Given that it'll be visible with the naked eye, it'll also be a good excuse for people to get out and take a good look at the night sky. No doubt it'll also generate media attention and some interesting discussion between people in that respect. Never a bad thing where such topics are concerned. 

 

Will certainly be keeping an eye on it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Giant plastic catcher heads for Pacific Ocean clean-up

davidshukman.png
David ShukmanScience editor
SF BayImage copyrightTHE OCEAN CLEANUP Image captionThe full boom is 600m in length with a skirt that extends down 3m

When a Dutch teenager went swimming in the sea in Greece seven years ago, he was shocked to see more plastic than fish.

In fact, Boyan Slat was so appalled by the pollution that he soon started to campaign for the oceans to be cleaned up.

For a long time, few people took him seriously. Here was a university drop-out with a far-fetched idea that surely could never work.

But this weekend, backed by major investment and some massive engineering, a vast plastic collection system will be towed out of San Francisco Bay.

Until now, the focus of plastic litter campaigns has been on beaches, with volunteers all over the world lifting bags and bottles from shorelines.

Boyan SlatImage copyrightTHE OCEAN CLEANUP Image captionEven those who question the approach applaud Boyan Slat's passion

Never before has anyone gone further by trying to clear the stuff from the middle of an ocean and, despite sea trials and computer modelling, no-one knows if the experiment will work.

Some experts worry that the effort is a distraction from the more pressing task of stopping more plastic getting into the sea in the first place, and that the operation may cause real harm to marine life.

But Boyan and his team at The Ocean Cleanup non-profit believe the sheer scale of plastic out there demands that action be taken.

Map: plastic in the seas

So what they are trying to do?

Their target is the eastern Pacific and what's called the Great Garbage Patch, where circular currents have concentrated plastic in one large area.

The aim is to halve the amount of pollution in the patch every five years so that by 2040 almost all of it will be gone.

"We feel we're in a great hurry," says Lonneke Holierhoek, the project's chief operating officer.

I'm meeting her at the project's headquarters in Rotterdam in offices that are far bigger than I expected. The Dutch government is a major backer, along with some wealthy companies and investors.

TestImage copyrightTHE OCEAN CLEANUP Image captionThe technology has been developed with support from the Dutch government

The project, with a budget of at least €20m (£18m), has grown from a young man's vision to a serious international enterprise.

There's a faint smell of seaweed and rubbish. On the desks and the floor are boxes brimming with fragments of plastic hauled from the sea on earlier expeditions, a reminder of the task ahead.

"If we don't do it," Lonneke tells me, "all this plastic will start breaking down into smaller and smaller pieces - and the smaller the pieces are, the more harmful and the harder to extract from the marine environment."

As an engineer who spent the past two decades working on offshore projects, she's not a campaigner but someone with a wealth of experience working with huge structures out at sea.

For her, the project is a determined effort to reverse the tide of pollution. "Rather than talking about it or contributing to problems or protesting against it, it's actually trying to solve it."

How will the project work?

The key point is that the collection system is passive - there are no motors, no machines. Instead, it'll drift, acting like an artificial coastline, gently gathering any plastic in its path.

Like a giant snake, made up of sections of tube, it's 600m (2,000ft) long and will float in a giant 'U' shape. Beneath it a screen will hang down 3m (10ft).

Because the plastic is floating just at or slightly below the surface, it only drifts with the force of the ocean currents. But because the collection system is also being shifted by the wind and waves, it should travel about one knot faster, shepherding the plastic into a dense mass.

Boom skirtImage copyrightTHE OCEAN CLEANUP Image captionThe team says the screen is designed to minimise collateral impacts on marine life

Fish should be able to swim underneath and, since the device has smooth surfaces, the hope is that no wildlife will become entangled.

On-board cameras will keep watch, and every six weeks or so a ship will travel out to scoop up the concentrated tangle of plastic and take it back to dry land to be recycled.

The plan is to use the recovered material to make a range of products to be deliberately marketed as "made from ocean plastic" and sold at a premium price.

What are the downsides?

Some experts I've spoken to are worried that marine life might suffer.

Anything drifting in the sea soon gets coated in algae, attracting plankton which draw in small fish and then bigger ones. Industrial fishing fleets actually deploy "fish aggregation devices" to act as lures.

Lonneke Holierhoek has an answer. An independent environmental study found that the impact can be minimised, she says, for example by making a noise just before the plastic is lifted out to scare away fish.

But Sue Kinsey of the Marine Conservation Society is among those who aren't convinced. She admires the passion and inspiration behind the project but says it could be harmful.

"The major problem is those creatures that passively float in the ocean that can't actually move out of the way - once they're in this array, they're going to be trapped there unable to move," she says.

She also says it's more cost-effective to clean up beaches instead and focus on preventing more plastic reaching the oceans.

Prof Richard Lampitt of the UK's National Oceanography Centre also applauds the project for raising awareness but reckons much of the plastic that gets into the sea sinks relatively quickly so that the effort won't be able to make much of a difference.

And he also highlights the carbon cost of building 60 of the collection devices, as the plan calls for, and the shuttling of the ships back and forth, all to retrieve an estimated 8,000 tonnes of plastic a year.

"The cost/benefit ratio does not look at all attractive," Prof Lampitt tells me.

Back in Rotterdam, one of the project's scientists, Laurent Lebreton, is convinced the effort is worth it, and he shows me two examples of plastic waste impacting the natural world.

A small piece of white coral has grown around the fibres of an old fishing net - a surprisingly shocking sight. And on the jagged edge of a plastic bottle there are unmistakeable tooth marks left by a fish that's taken a bite.

"That plastic gets swallowed and the fish gets eaten and the plastic enters the food chain and ends up on our plates," Laurent says.

"The solution is - one - making sure plastic doesn't get into the natural environment, and - two - clean up the legacy plastic that's been accumulating since the 1950s."

It'll take three weeks for the system to be towed out to the Great Garbage Patch some 2,000km (1,200 miles) off the coast of California. The first sense of how it's performing should be clear later this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, davieG said:

Giant plastic catcher heads for Pacific Ocean clean-up

davidshukman.png
David ShukmanScience editor
SF BayImage copyrightTHE OCEAN CLEANUP Image captionThe full boom is 600m in length with a skirt that extends down 3m

When a Dutch teenager went swimming in the sea in Greece seven years ago, he was shocked to see more plastic than fish.

In fact, Boyan Slat was so appalled by the pollution that he soon started to campaign for the oceans to be cleaned up.

For a long time, few people took him seriously. Here was a university drop-out with a far-fetched idea that surely could never work.

But this weekend, backed by major investment and some massive engineering, a vast plastic collection system will be towed out of San Francisco Bay.

Until now, the focus of plastic litter campaigns has been on beaches, with volunteers all over the world lifting bags and bottles from shorelines.

Boyan SlatImage copyrightTHE OCEAN CLEANUP Image captionEven those who question the approach applaud Boyan Slat's passion

Never before has anyone gone further by trying to clear the stuff from the middle of an ocean and, despite sea trials and computer modelling, no-one knows if the experiment will work.

Some experts worry that the effort is a distraction from the more pressing task of stopping more plastic getting into the sea in the first place, and that the operation may cause real harm to marine life.

But Boyan and his team at The Ocean Cleanup non-profit believe the sheer scale of plastic out there demands that action be taken.

Map: plastic in the seas

So what they are trying to do?

Their target is the eastern Pacific and what's called the Great Garbage Patch, where circular currents have concentrated plastic in one large area.

The aim is to halve the amount of pollution in the patch every five years so that by 2040 almost all of it will be gone.

"We feel we're in a great hurry," says Lonneke Holierhoek, the project's chief operating officer.

I'm meeting her at the project's headquarters in Rotterdam in offices that are far bigger than I expected. The Dutch government is a major backer, along with some wealthy companies and investors.

TestImage copyrightTHE OCEAN CLEANUP Image captionThe technology has been developed with support from the Dutch government

The project, with a budget of at least €20m (£18m), has grown from a young man's vision to a serious international enterprise.

There's a faint smell of seaweed and rubbish. On the desks and the floor are boxes brimming with fragments of plastic hauled from the sea on earlier expeditions, a reminder of the task ahead.

"If we don't do it," Lonneke tells me, "all this plastic will start breaking down into smaller and smaller pieces - and the smaller the pieces are, the more harmful and the harder to extract from the marine environment."

As an engineer who spent the past two decades working on offshore projects, she's not a campaigner but someone with a wealth of experience working with huge structures out at sea.

For her, the project is a determined effort to reverse the tide of pollution. "Rather than talking about it or contributing to problems or protesting against it, it's actually trying to solve it."

How will the project work?

The key point is that the collection system is passive - there are no motors, no machines. Instead, it'll drift, acting like an artificial coastline, gently gathering any plastic in its path.

Like a giant snake, made up of sections of tube, it's 600m (2,000ft) long and will float in a giant 'U' shape. Beneath it a screen will hang down 3m (10ft).

Because the plastic is floating just at or slightly below the surface, it only drifts with the force of the ocean currents. But because the collection system is also being shifted by the wind and waves, it should travel about one knot faster, shepherding the plastic into a dense mass.

Boom skirtImage copyrightTHE OCEAN CLEANUP Image captionThe team says the screen is designed to minimise collateral impacts on marine life

Fish should be able to swim underneath and, since the device has smooth surfaces, the hope is that no wildlife will become entangled.

On-board cameras will keep watch, and every six weeks or so a ship will travel out to scoop up the concentrated tangle of plastic and take it back to dry land to be recycled.

The plan is to use the recovered material to make a range of products to be deliberately marketed as "made from ocean plastic" and sold at a premium price.

What are the downsides?

Some experts I've spoken to are worried that marine life might suffer.

Anything drifting in the sea soon gets coated in algae, attracting plankton which draw in small fish and then bigger ones. Industrial fishing fleets actually deploy "fish aggregation devices" to act as lures.

Lonneke Holierhoek has an answer. An independent environmental study found that the impact can be minimised, she says, for example by making a noise just before the plastic is lifted out to scare away fish.

But Sue Kinsey of the Marine Conservation Society is among those who aren't convinced. She admires the passion and inspiration behind the project but says it could be harmful.

"The major problem is those creatures that passively float in the ocean that can't actually move out of the way - once they're in this array, they're going to be trapped there unable to move," she says.

She also says it's more cost-effective to clean up beaches instead and focus on preventing more plastic reaching the oceans.

Prof Richard Lampitt of the UK's National Oceanography Centre also applauds the project for raising awareness but reckons much of the plastic that gets into the sea sinks relatively quickly so that the effort won't be able to make much of a difference.

And he also highlights the carbon cost of building 60 of the collection devices, as the plan calls for, and the shuttling of the ships back and forth, all to retrieve an estimated 8,000 tonnes of plastic a year.

"The cost/benefit ratio does not look at all attractive," Prof Lampitt tells me.

Back in Rotterdam, one of the project's scientists, Laurent Lebreton, is convinced the effort is worth it, and he shows me two examples of plastic waste impacting the natural world.

A small piece of white coral has grown around the fibres of an old fishing net - a surprisingly shocking sight. And on the jagged edge of a plastic bottle there are unmistakeable tooth marks left by a fish that's taken a bite.

"That plastic gets swallowed and the fish gets eaten and the plastic enters the food chain and ends up on our plates," Laurent says.

"The solution is - one - making sure plastic doesn't get into the natural environment, and - two - clean up the legacy plastic that's been accumulating since the 1950s."

It'll take three weeks for the system to be towed out to the Great Garbage Patch some 2,000km (1,200 miles) off the coast of California. The first sense of how it's performing should be clear later this year.

Something like this would probably be the best and most-closet way in dealing with this plastic pollution issue.

 

Think it'll take a long time and trial and error to produce a product with this that works almost 100%.

Fair play to him for his idea, as not sure what other better alternative someone else could come up with to tackle the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45471410

 

Put a plan forward that everyone can agree with now, or pay much more mitigating the effects of the changes later. Them's the choices - but hey, what does it matter to most world leaders, they'll be dead when the hard graft starts and "we can't let those nasty guys over there get an economic leg-up on us", right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Bellend Sebastian

Bellend Sebastian

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-45775309

 

Further to above, really. There's a choice: either we work and pay now to try and keep this manageable, or we keep going as we are and take the gamble that we can adapt to the consequences - and hope that they're not as costly in terms of money and lives.

Scares me silly, all this stuff - both the problem itself and how it's not taken anywhere nearly as seriously as it should be either by the public, media or governments

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Scares me silly, all this stuff - both the problem itself and how it's not taken anywhere nearly as seriously as it should be either by the public, media or governments

And yet I was talking to someone today who still insists it's a conspiracy and the researchers are getting paid off to come up with this because, you know, they couldn't make more by either supporting the status quo or getting a job at a brokerage firm if they're good with maths and physics.

 

TBH I've come to the conclusion myself that the consensus in the scientific community about what is happening is actually irrelevant, not when the wider world with the power to actually make change can simply either ignore them or disbelieve them (and by and large, they do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yorkie1999

yorkie1999

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

And yet I was talking to someone today who still insists it's a conspiracy and the researchers are getting paid off to come up with this because, you know, they couldn't make more by either supporting the status quo or getting a job at a brokerage firm if they're good with maths and physics.

 

TBH I've come to the conclusion myself that the consensus in the scientific community about what is happening is actually irrelevant, not when the wider world with the power to actually make change can simply either ignore them or disbelieve them (and by and large, they do).

It's all about budgets. If the government put 10 billion quid into research for global cooling, within 5 years the planet would be cooling down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

It's all about budgets. If the government put 10 billion quid into research for global cooling, within 5 years the planet would be cooling down.

Absolutely. It would be similar with future forms of energy (such as higher efficiency solar and fusion power).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

It's all about budgets. If the government put 10 billion quid into research for global cooling, within 5 years the planet would be cooling down.

Talking of Budgets  - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-45783088/amsterdam-s-canal-boats-go-electric

Sometimes the price is worth it in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45786690

 

No mention of lorries/trucks?

 

 

Why you have (probably) already bought your last car
By Justin Rowlatt
BBC News
9 hours ago
 774 comments Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Driverless taxis - the transport of the future?
I'm guessing you are scoffing in disbelief at the very suggestion of this article, but bear with me.

A growing number of tech analysts are predicting that in less than 20 years we'll all have stopped owning cars, and, what's more, the internal combustion engine will have been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Yes, it's a big claim and you are right to be sceptical, but the argument that a unique convergence of new technology is poised to revolutionise personal transportation is more persuasive than you might think.

The central idea is pretty simple: Self-driving electric vehicles organised into an Uber-style network will be able to offer such cheap transport that you'll very quickly - we're talking perhaps a decade - decide you don't need a car any more.

And if you're thinking this timescale is wildly optimistic, just recall how rapidly cars replaced horses.

Take a look at this picture of 5th Avenue in New York in 1900. Can you spot the car?

Image copyrightNATIONAL ARCHIVES
Now look at this picture from 1913. Yes, this time where's the horse?

Image copyrightLIBRARY OF CONGRESS
In 1908 the first Model T Ford rolled off the production line; by 1930 the equestrian age was, to all intents and purposes, over - and all thanks to the disruptive power of an earlier tech innovation - the internal combustion engine.

So how will this latest transportation revolution unfold?

The driverless Uber model
First off, consider how Uber and other networked taxi companies have already changed the way we move around. In most major cities an Uber driver - or one of its rivals - is usually just a couple of minutes away, and charges less than established taxis, let's say $10 (£7.65).

The company's exponential growth is evidence of how powerful the Uber business model is.

Now take out the driver. You've probably cut costs by at least 50%.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Uber has been experimenting with driverless cars
So if we're trying to work out when this revolution will begin in earnest the key date will be when self-driving vehicle technology is available and - crucially - has regulatory backing.

That could well be sooner than you think. The UK has said it hopes to authorise the first fully autonomous cars as early as 2021.

And, say enthusiasts for autonomy, it will only take one city to prove the technology is safe and useful and the rest of the world will very quickly rush to catch up.

So self-driving cars have cut our $10 journey to $5.

The switch to electric
Now imagine the current mostly fossil fuel-powered taxi fleet is replaced with electric cars.

At the moment electric vehicles are more expensive than similar models with internal combustion engines, but offer significantly lower lifetime costs.

Electric vehicle sales surge in UK
The UK firm hoping to take on Google’s driverless cars
Driverless cars on UK roads by 2021 - really?
They are more reliable, for a start. The typical electric car has around 20 moving parts compared to the 2,000 or so in an internal combustion engine.

As a result electric vehicles also tend to last much longer. Most electric car manufacturers expect their vehicles to keep on going for at least 500,000 miles.

These factors aren't that important for most consumers - after all, the average driver in England does less than 10,000 miles a year and our cars are parked 95% of the time. However, they are huge issues if you're using a vehicle pretty much continuously, as would be the case with a self-driving taxi.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
The end of the road for the internal combustion engine?
Add in the low cost of recharging batteries compared to refuelling and you've got another dramatic reduction in costs.

And it's worth noting that the cost of electric vehicles is likely to continue to fall, and rapidly. As they become mainstream, returns to scale will drive down costs. That's the logic behind Tesla's $5bn battery plant, the so-called "Gigafactory".

How does this affect our $10 journey?

It brings another dramatic reduction. Fully autonomous electric taxi networks could offer rides at as little as 10% of current rates.

At least that's what tech prophet Tony Seba reckons. He and his team at the think-tank RethinkX have done more than anyone else to think through how this revolution might rip through the personal transportation market.

'Transport as a service'
We've now cut our $10 fare to just $1.

Mr Seba calls the idea of a robo-taxi network "transport as a service", and estimates it could save the average American as much as $6,000 a year. That's the equivalent of a 10% pay rise.

And don't forget, when the revolution comes you won't be behind the wheel so now you'll be working or relaxing as you travel - another big benefit.

You still think that car parked outside your flat is worth having?

What's more, once this new model of getting around takes hold the benefits are likely to be reinforcing. The more vehicles in the network, the better the service offered to consumers; the more miles self-driving cars do, the more efficient and safer they'll get; the more electric vehicles manufactured, the cheaper each one will be.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Don't worry about running out of charge
Don't worry that rural areas will be left out. A vehicle could be parked in every village waiting for your order to come.

And range anxiety - the fear that you might run out of electricity - won't be a problem either. Should the battery run low the network will send a fully charged car to meet you so you can continue your journey.

You've probably seen headlines about accidents involving self-driving cars but the truth is they will be far safer than ones driven by you and me - they won't get regulatory approval if they are not. That means tens of thousands of lives - perhaps hundreds of thousands - will be saved as accident rates plummet.

That will generate yet another cost saving for our fleets of robo-taxis. The price of insurance will tumble, while at the same time those of us who insist on continuing to drive our own vehicles will face higher charges.

Human drivers banned
According to the tech visionaries it won't be long before the whole market tilts irreversibly away from car ownership and the trusty old internal combustion engine.

RethinkX, for example, reckons that within 10 years of self-driving cars getting regulatory approval 95% of passenger miles will be in these electric robo-taxis.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Will cars parked outside houses soon be a thing of the past?
The logical next step will be for human beings to be banned from driving cars at all because they pose such a risk to other road users.

Take a moment to think about the wide-reaching effects this revolution will have, aside from just changing how we get around. There will be downsides: millions of car industry workers and taxi drivers will be looking for new jobs, for a start.

But think of the hundreds of billions of dollars consumers will save, and which can now be spent elsewhere in the economy.

Meanwhile, the numbers of cars will plummet. RethinkX estimates that the number of vehicles on US roads will fall from nearly 250 million to just 45 million over a 10-year period. That will free up huge amounts of space in our towns and cities.

And, please take note: I haven't mentioned the enormous environmental benefits of converting the world's cars to electricity.

That's because the logic of this upheaval isn't driven by new rules on pollution or worries about global warming but by the most powerful incentive in any economy - cold hard cash.

That said, there's no question that a wholesale switch away from fossil fuels will slow climate change and massively reduce air pollution.

In short, let the revolution begin!

But seriously, I've deliberately put these arguments forcefully to prompt debate and we want to hear what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45798643

 

Australia defies climate warning to back coal
9 October 2018
Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Coal provides about 60% of Australia's electricity
The Australian government has backed coal-fired power, despite the recommendations of a major report on climate change.

Phasing out coal is considered crucial to limiting global warming to within 1.5C, as set out in the UN report released yesterday.

Australia's deputy prime minister has said the country should "absolutely" continue to use and exploit its coal.

But China remains the world's biggest coal consumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, davieG said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45786690

 

No mention of lorries/trucks?

 

 

 

 

If anything, making trucks with designated destinations self-driving would be even easier than the average car. Expect it will eventually happen, too. 

 

TBH the self-driving part isn't as important as removing the combustion engine as the primary method of powering road vehicles.

 

4 hours ago, davieG said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45798643

 

Australia defies climate warning to back coal
9 October 2018
Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Coal provides about 60% of Australia's electricity
The Australian government has backed coal-fired power, despite the recommendations of a major report on climate change.

Phasing out coal is considered crucial to limiting global warming to within 1.5C, as set out in the UN report released yesterday.

Australia's deputy prime minister has said the country should "absolutely" continue to use and exploit its coal.

But China remains the world's biggest coal consumer.

So a mix of "fvck you, I won't do what you tell me" and a belief in the myth of "clean coal", then?

 

Must have learned from the current occupant of the White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBH the self-driving part isn't as important as removing the combustion engine as the primary method of powering road vehicles.

Yes it was more to do with electric trucks being viable in the same timescale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bellend Sebastian

Bellend Sebastian

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, davieG said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45798643

 

Australia defies climate warning to back coal
9 October 2018
Share this with Facebook Share this with Messenger Share this with Twitter Share this with Email Share
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Coal provides about 60% of Australia's electricity
The Australian government has backed coal-fired power, despite the recommendations of a major report on climate change.

Phasing out coal is considered crucial to limiting global warming to within 1.5C, as set out in the UN report released yesterday.

Australia's deputy prime minister has said the country should "absolutely" continue to use and exploit its coal.

But China remains the world's biggest coal consumer.

Reminded me of this old article, for some reason:

 

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/climate-denial-us-uk-australia-canada-english/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Reminded me of this old article, for some reason:

 

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/climate-denial-us-uk-australia-canada-english/

Yeah.

 

The problem is that a lot of this is fighting what might be deemed the human condition - people like the reassurance that tomorrow is going to be just like today, they don't like change, especially change that they believe they're not responsible for and they think could be beyond their control. People who promote a comfortable status quo instead of a bitter possible future unless changes are made tend to be much more marketable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...