Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

20 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

The devastation in Mozambique looks horrifying. 90% of Beira is destroyed apparently. I was near there 10 years ago in a small beach village called Tofo. Can’t seem to get much news about what’s happening sadly. Not looking good. 

 

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

It's not been in the need much really for a disaster of this scale. The images are horrific.

It's a sad thing, really - unless the dearth count is really spectacular or a first world country is involved such devastating acts of nature often aren't all that newsworthy in the opinion of those who show and watch the news.

 

Another insight that the Earth is much, much better at dealing widespread devastation at short notice than humans are (mostly, anyway) though.

[leicsmac]

However, speaking of human caused problems:

 

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/3/19/18262556/face-mask-air-filter-pollution-vogmask-airpop

 

Brave New World, folks. Get yours today.

[Buce]

20 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

The devastation in Mozambique looks horrifying. 90% of Beira is destroyed apparently. I was near there 10 years ago in a small beach village called Tofo. Can’t seem to get much news about what’s happening sadly. Not looking good. 

 

There has been loads of coverage:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/19/cyclone-idai-worst-weather-disaster-to-hit-southern-hemisphere-mozambique-malawi

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/18/cyclone-idai-death-toll-climbs-over-120-in-mozambique-and-zimbabwe

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2019/mar/19/hundreds-dead-or-missing-devastation-cyclone-idai-mozambique-in-pictures

 

 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

28 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

There has been loads of coverage:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/19/cyclone-idai-worst-weather-disaster-to-hit-southern-hemisphere-mozambique-malawi

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/18/cyclone-idai-death-toll-climbs-over-120-in-mozambique-and-zimbabwe

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2019/mar/19/hundreds-dead-or-missing-devastation-cyclone-idai-mozambique-in-pictures

I meant specifically about Tofo, as it’s just down the road from Beira and is a tiny village that would be overwhelmingly damaged by a cyclone. According to one of the bars I still follow on Facebook it seems to have just skimmed past! 

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

I meant specifically about Tofo, as it’s just down the road from Beira and is a tiny village that would be overwhelmingly damaged by a cyclone. According to one of the bars I still follow on Facebook it seems to have just skimmed past! 

 

Oh, right.

 

It gets a mention in this report.

[urban.spaceman]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Oh, right.

 

It gets a mention in this report.

Ta. Not a very pleasant mention though - I think you’ve found the Southern African Guido Fawkes equivalent...

[Guest]

Enough of the bad news:

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-an-easy-way-to-turn-seawater-into-hydrogen-fuel

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/norway-s-recycling-scheme-is-so-effective-92-percent-of-plastic-bottles-can-be-reused

[Buce]

'Mindblowing' haul of fossils over 500m years old unearthed in China

Thousands of fossils date back to huge burst in diversity of life on Earth known as Cambrian explosion

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/mar/21/mindblowing-haul-of-fossils-over-500m-years-old-unearthed-in-china

[Buce]

 

Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report

Ad campaigns hide investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction, says InfluenceMap

 

The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

 

Increasingly they are using social media to successfully push their agenda to weaken and oppose any meaningful legislation to tackle global warming.

In the run-up to the US midterm elections last year $2m was spent on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads by global oil giants and their industry bodies, promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according to the report published on Friday by InfluenceMap.

 

Separately, BP donated $13m to a campaign, also supported by Chevron, that successfully stopped a carbon tax in Washington state – $1m of which was spent on social media ads, the research shows.

 

Edward Collins, the report’s author, analysed corporate spending on lobbying, briefing and advertising, and assessed what proportion was dedicated to climate issues.

He said: “Oil majors’ climate branding sounds increasingly hollow and their credibility is on the line. They publicly support climate action while lobbying against binding policy. They advocate low-carbon solutions but such investments are dwarfed by spending on expanding their fossil fuel business.”

After the Paris climate agreement in 2015 the large integrated oil and gas companies said they supported a price on carbon and formed groups like the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative which promote voluntary measures.

But, the report states, there is a glaring gap between their words and their actions.

The five publicly listed oil majors – ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and Total – now spend about $195m a year on branding campaigns suggesting they support action against climate change.

 

But the report said these campaigns were misleading the public about the extent of the oil companies’ actions because while publicly endorsing the need to act, they are massively increasing investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction. In 2019 their spending will increase to $115bn, with just 3% of that directed at low carbon projects.

Shell said in a statement: “We firmly reject the premise of this report. We are very clear about our support for the Paris agreement, and the steps that we are taking to help meet society’s needs for more and cleaner energy.

“We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it.”

 

Chevron said it disagreed with the report’s findings. “Chevron is taking prudent, cost-effective actions and is committed to working with policymakers to design balanced and transparent greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies that address environmental goals and ensure consumers have access to affordable, reliable and ever cleaner energy.”

The successful lobbying and direct opposition to policy measures to tackle global warming have hindered governments globally in their efforts to implement policies after the Paris agreement to meet climate targets and keep warming below 1.5C.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

Top oil firms spending millions lobbying to block climate change policies, says report

Ad campaigns hide investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction, says InfluenceMap

 

The largest five stock market listed oil and gas companies spend nearly $200m (£153m) a year lobbying to delay, control or block policies to tackle climate change, according to a new report.

Chevron, BP and ExxonMobil were the main companies leading the field in direct lobbying to push against a climate policy to tackle global warming, the report said.

 

Increasingly they are using social media to successfully push their agenda to weaken and oppose any meaningful legislation to tackle global warming.

In the run-up to the US midterm elections last year $2m was spent on targeted Facebook and Instagram ads by global oil giants and their industry bodies, promoting the benefits of increased fossil fuel production, according to the report published on Friday by InfluenceMap.

 

Separately, BP donated $13m to a campaign, also supported by Chevron, that successfully stopped a carbon tax in Washington state – $1m of which was spent on social media ads, the research shows.

 

Edward Collins, the report’s author, analysed corporate spending on lobbying, briefing and advertising, and assessed what proportion was dedicated to climate issues.

He said: “Oil majors’ climate branding sounds increasingly hollow and their credibility is on the line. They publicly support climate action while lobbying against binding policy. They advocate low-carbon solutions but such investments are dwarfed by spending on expanding their fossil fuel business.”

After the Paris climate agreement in 2015 the large integrated oil and gas companies said they supported a price on carbon and formed groups like the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative which promote voluntary measures.

But, the report states, there is a glaring gap between their words and their actions.

The five publicly listed oil majors – ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, BP and Total – now spend about $195m a year on branding campaigns suggesting they support action against climate change.

 

But the report said these campaigns were misleading the public about the extent of the oil companies’ actions because while publicly endorsing the need to act, they are massively increasing investment in a huge expansion of oil and gas extraction. In 2019 their spending will increase to $115bn, with just 3% of that directed at low carbon projects.

Shell said in a statement: “We firmly reject the premise of this report. We are very clear about our support for the Paris agreement, and the steps that we are taking to help meet society’s needs for more and cleaner energy.

“We make no apology for talking to policymakers and regulators around the world to make our voice heard on crucial topics such as climate change and how to address it.”

 

Chevron said it disagreed with the report’s findings. “Chevron is taking prudent, cost-effective actions and is committed to working with policymakers to design balanced and transparent greenhouse gas emissions reductions policies that address environmental goals and ensure consumers have access to affordable, reliable and ever cleaner energy.”

The successful lobbying and direct opposition to policy measures to tackle global warming have hindered governments globally in their efforts to implement policies after the Paris agreement to meet climate targets and keep warming below 1.5C.

Yeah, I wish this was surprising.

 

These companies know they can't get away with screwing the future in favour of profit in the present much more (outside the US anyway), so they're having to go on something of a charm offensive as well as obfuscating the issue.

 

As has been said before, the tobacco industry wrote the playbook, these companies are following it to the letter.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkbdbRjMX2Y

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-47666007

 

"It may sound frightening, but the scientific evidence is that if we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies."

 

It is frightening, but only if we take no action to either mitigate it or prepare for it. But right now, we're not doing enough of either.

[davieG]

AscendFollow

18 March at 11:13 · 

This was filmed two days ago off the Dominican Republic Coast.
Our Oceans are dying.

[yorkie1999]

23 minutes ago, davieG said:

AscendFollow

18 March at 11:13 · 

This was filmed two days ago off the Dominican Republic Coast.
Our Oceans are dying.

Here's a question, do you re-cycle your waste? I think the answer for 95% of us living in comparatively wealthy countries is yes. Where it goes after you've put your rubbish in the bin is debatable as i believe most of the rubbish we we're paying china to take from us and recycle was ending up in the indian ocean.  I think you'll find those that are responsible are un-policed and probably never will be. Basically countries that are emerging from being 3rd world places.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Here's a question, do you re-cycle your waste? I think the answer for 95% of us living in comparatively wealthy countries is yes. Where it goes after you've put your rubbish in the bin is debatable as i believe most of the rubbish we we're paying china to take from us and recycle was ending up in the indian ocean.  I think you'll find those that are responsible are un-policed and probably never will be. Basically countries that are emerging from being 3rd world places.

As we agreed before though, apportioning responsibility for something like this that may end up affecting the whole world is about as comforting as euthanasia.

[yorkie1999]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As we agreed before though, apportioning responsibility for something like this that may end up affecting the whole world is about as comforting as euthanasia.

You may have agreed to it but i didn't, apportioning responsibility is the key to addressing the problem.

[leicsmac]

 

 

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

You may have agreed to it but i didn't, apportioning responsibility is the key to addressing the problem.

Ah right, looking back:

 

On 12/12/2018 at 01:28, yorkie1999 said:

 

Secondly. It's about as comforting as euthanasia but what else can you do apart from apportion the blame to where it really lies and hope that the main contributors to world pollution start listening. 

 

I must have misunderstood what you meant, then - I thought what you were getting at was while apportioning blame is about the only thing we can do it's not all that comforting.

[Grebfromgrebland]

4 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Here's a question, do you re-cycle your waste? I think the answer for 95% of us living in comparatively wealthy countries is yes. Where it goes after you've put your rubbish in the bin is debatable as i believe most of the rubbish we we're paying china to take from us and recycle was ending up in the indian ocean.  I think you'll find those that are responsible are un-policed and probably never will be. Basically countries that are emerging from being 3rd world places.

Recycling is a bit of a con unless executed properly.  Much better to not produce in the first place and re-use rather than recycle. 

 

It really saddens me to see the amount of plastic in the weekly shop, it in everything.

 

I believe every supermarket should have a plastic free section by law where you can buy everything you need to run a household. I think the demand for this would be massive. But when Michael Gove the shit bag was asked about this he was very relaxed about the whole thing.

 

The main issue is that plastic is made out of oil. Oil is big bucks. Nothing else matters. Especially to the Tories.

[yorkie1999]

29 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Recycling is a bit of a con unless executed properly.  Much better to not produce in the first place and re-use rather than recycle. 

 

It really saddens me to see the amount of plastic in the weekly shop, it in everything.

 

I believe every supermarket should have a plastic free section by law where you can buy everything you need to run a household. I think the demand for this would be massive. But when Michael Gove the shit bag was asked about this he was very relaxed about the whole thing.

 

The main issue is that plastic is made out of oil. Oil is big bucks. Nothing else matters. Especially to the Tories.

This is what i can't work out. When i was a kid there were four people living in my dad's house and we had one small bin that lasted the week, now i've got three wheelie bins (one's for garden waste) and a bag for paper recycling and there's four people living in my house! Where's all this crap coming from?

[whoareyaaa]

1 hour ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Recycling is a bit of a con unless executed properly.  Much better to not produce in the first place and re-use rather than recycle. 

 

It really saddens me to see the amount of plastic in the weekly shop, it in everything.

 

I believe every supermarket should have a plastic free section by law where you can buy everything you need to run a household. I think the demand for this would be massive. But when Michael Gove the shit bag was asked about this he was very relaxed about the whole thing.

 

The main issue is that plastic is made out of oil. Oil is big bucks. Nothing else matters. Especially to the Tories.

All packaging should be made from paper or a dissolvable material which im sure is already out there by law its the only way to put a stop to the problem.

 

plastic bottles should be replaced with glass

[Wymsey]

Think cargo shipping companies and the like need to take more responsibility for their actions.

Their waste (oil, general discarded product items etc) can leave both their drop-off location and stretches of their journey afterwards polluted.

 

If there is a proposal for paper shopping bags to be used by people and not the current cheap fiddly plastic ones currently in circulation globally, I'd go all for this idea as at least the paper material will be less harmful to the environment than the damage plastic has shown to do in the oceans.

 

Otherwise, am not sure how any one can stop (aside from obviously stopping it themselves) others from dumping plastic bags but also other plastic material from entering the sea zones.

Stopping it from happening is currently like trying to prevent everyone from smoking and taking drugs; a battle which can't really be won.

 

[Buce]

8 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Think cargo shipping companies and the like need to take more responsibility for their actions.

Their waste (oil, general discarded product items etc) can leave both their drop-off location and stretches of their journey afterwards polluted.

 

If there is a proposal for paper shopping bags to be used by people and not the current cheap fiddly plastic ones currently in circulation globally, I'd go all for this idea as at least the paper material will be less harmful to the environment than the damage plastic has shown to do in the oceans.

 

Otherwise, am not sure how any one can stop (aside from obviously stopping it themselves) others from dumping plastic bags but also other plastic material from entering the sea zones.

Stopping it from happening is currently like trying to prevent everyone from smoking and taking drugs; a battle which can't really be won.

 

1

 

You can help - albeit in a small way - by avoiding buying goods that have been shipped halfway across the world. Buy fruit grown locally, for example, or stuff manufactured in the UK or Europe. Of course, it may cost more, but you might think that a price worth paying to help save the planet for your kids.

[Grebfromgrebland]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

You can help - albeit in a small way - by avoiding buying goods that have been shipped halfway across the world. Buy fruit grown locally, for example, or stuff manufactured in the UK or Europe. Of course, it may cost more, but you might think that a price worth paying to help save the planet for your kids.

Nice idea but would never be though to make a difference. This needs to be done at government level and quickly. 

 

Unless we have the green party in power I doubt anything apart from token gestures will be made to protect our health and the environment. 

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Nice idea but would never be though to make a difference. This needs to be done at government level and quickly. 

 

Unless we have the green party in power I doubt anything apart from token gestures will be made to protect our health and the environment. 

 

I agree it needs to be done at a national level but it's a cop-out if you take the attitude that you can't make a difference; 'many a mickle makes a muckle' as my grandma used to say.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47711600

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47681239

 

Couple of fascinating tidbits.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/b2e7ee32-ad28-4ec4-89aa-a8b8c98f95a5

 

A case for ignorance being bliss, but knowledge (and action) being necessary, I think.