Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Applying the Dharma for the preservation of planet Earth and its inhabitants
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:16 pm

There's an electric vehicle in your future -
Volkswagen plans to add a subcompact crossover costing about 18,000 euros (US$21,000, or about $28,000 Canadian) to its all-electric I.D. range, expanding its lineup of zero-emissions vehicles that are more affordable than those of Tesla, according to people familiar with the matter.

The entry-level vehicle may be built at VW’s factory in Emden, Germany, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plan hasn’t received final approval by the manufacturer’s supervisory board. Sales could start sometime after 2020, and the company expects to sell about 200,000 per year, they said.

That would put it on par with current production levels of the more-expensive Tesla Model 3, the U.S. electric-car leader’s most affordable vehicle, which is due to arrive in Europe next year.

The I.D. range is at the heart of one of the auto industry’s most aggressive electric-car initiatives—a plan to put 50 models on the road across the group, including volume brands such as VW, Seat and Skoda. ...
:reading: https://driving.ca/volkswagen/auto-news ... enge-tesla

:twothumbs:
Kim

User avatar
fwiw
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:06 pm

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by fwiw » Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:58 am

In France Renault has had "affordable" (less than 20k euros) electric cars for years now
... in my opinion (<- meaning unless one is talking about something one has been a direct witness of, every single thing anyone ever says is no more than an opinion. Also, don't ask me to do your research for you)

chownah
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by chownah » Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:29 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:16 pm
There's an electric vehicle in your future -
Volkswagen plans to add a subcompact crossover costing about 18,000 euros (US$21,000, or about $28,000 Canadian) to its all-electric I.D. range, expanding its lineup of zero-emissions vehicles that are more affordable than those of Tesla, according to people familiar with the matter.

The entry-level vehicle may be built at VW’s factory in Emden, Germany, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plan hasn’t received final approval by the manufacturer’s supervisory board. Sales could start sometime after 2020, and the company expects to sell about 200,000 per year, they said.
I"m all for more electric cars.......reality check: volkswagen is saying that they will have a more affordable electric car and MAYBE it will be available in 3 YEARS.......I'm wondering what tesla might have available in 3 years.
chownah

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Nov 16, 2018 9:40 pm

Cities are sinking — and experts say we're not doing enough to save them

"There are many cities around the world vulnerable to sea level rise ... Shanghai and Guangzhou, Jakarta, Bangkok, Dhaka, Alexandria, Lagos, New York, Miami, London and Cairns," says Professor Mark Howden, Director of the Climate Change Institute at ANU and Vice Chair of the IPCC.

"In many of these cases catchment development, groundwater extraction (which lowers land levels) and the sheer weight of the buildings is making the situation worse." ...

Cities around the world are sinking for a range of reasons; what they have in common is a stark lack of preparedness and a pattern of unsustainable urbanisation, says Ashley Dawson, author of Extreme Cities: The Peril and Promise of Urban Life in the Age of Climate Change.

"Cities... are at the forefront of the coming climate chaos, their natural vulnerabilities heightened by social injustice," says Dawson, who is Professor of English at CUNY Graduate Center in New York City.

"Cities are both encountering extreme forms of weather as a result of climate change, from drought to inundation.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.

"But in addition ... cities are extremely unequal. And you have to think about [the convergence of those] two different things to really understand what we are confronting."

Most global cities have large numbers of people living in so-called informal circumstances.

"[They're living] basically in slums, and those slums tend to be located in some of the most environmentally vulnerable parts of these cities," Professor Dawson says.

"That's going to have a major impact, particularly in tropical cities of Asia which are the ... centre for global urbanisation. ...
:reading: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-17/ ... t/10503924

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Nov 23, 2018 6:42 am

Adaptation, for a change - with a bit of politics.
Forget geopolitics, water scarcity shapes up as the biggest threat to China's rise

A water crisis could be the biggest threat to China's rise as a superpower, undercutting the growth and stability so prized by the Government.

In unusually blunt terms, former Chinese premier Wen Jiabao has warned the lack of water threatened the very survival of the Chinese nation itself.

Most of northern China suffers from acute water shortage. The statistics are alarming: in the past 25 years, 28,000 rivers and waterways have disappeared across the country.

Key points:

The Yongding River has been dry for 30 years
At its peak, the 700-kilometre river was at least 10 metres deep
The Government's $100 billion South-North Water Transfer Project has been tipped as a solution ...

Government canal systems 'divert other people's water'

The Government said the recently opened South-North Water Transfer Project is the solution.

It has been 60 years in the making, and at a cost of $100 billion, it is the most expensive and biggest engineering project of its type.

Water travels from Southern China in the 1,500-kilometre canal for 15 days to get to Beijing. It is a lifeline for the capital, providing about two-thirds of the city's drinking water.

The Government has planned another controversial canal from the Tibetan Plateau.

Wang Yonchen, like many others, said at best it was only a short-term solution.

"Beijing is not so special, why are we diverting other people's water that's also shrinking? We should learn to save water, we only have one Earth."
The canal systems will not be able to satisfy water demands for industry or many northern provinces.

And that is a big problem for state planners as China continues to develop.
:reading: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-23/ ... h/10434116

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:58 am

The dietary fix.
... If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half.

So say the scientists behind a new study published in Nature, who predicted that in 2050, sticking to a plant-based diet, with just one portion of red meat a week, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 56%.

The report found that sticking to a “flexitarian diet” was one of three ways – alongside improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste – we could limit the food system’s impact on climate change, water scarcity and pollution in the coming decades. ...
:reading: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/ ... lexitarian

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Tue Dec 04, 2018 2:16 am

With water supplies becoming increasingly problematic ( :hello: California) here's something to keep in mind -
water-used-by-power-plants.png
water-used-by-power-plants.png (162.41 KiB) Viewed 148 times

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by chownah » Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:47 am

... If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half.

So say the scientists behind a new study published in Nature, who predicted that in 2050, sticking to a plant-based diet, with just one portion of red meat a week, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 56%.

The report found that sticking to a “flexitarian diet” was one of three ways – alongside improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste – we could limit the food system’s impact on climate change, water scarcity and pollution in the coming decades. ...
[/quote]
I think this is misleading.....first it says being meatless most of the week would cut emissions by more than half.......but then it says this would be happening in 2050.....what does this mean?
chownah

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:20 am

News bulletin from 350.org - https://gofossilfree.org/fossil-free-news-10/
Momentum ahead of UN Climate Talks #COP24

Major wins, shock news and a focus on HSBC coal funding in this Fossil Free News
:reading:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:59 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:58 am
The dietary fix.
... If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half.

So say the scientists behind a new study published in Nature, who predicted that in 2050, sticking to a plant-based diet, with just one portion of red meat a week, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 56%.

The report found that sticking to a “flexitarian diet” was one of three ways – alongside improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste – we could limit the food system’s impact on climate change, water scarcity and pollution in the coming decades. ...
:reading: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/ ... lexitarian

:namaste:
Kim
I found on the internet that agriculture contributes about 10% of greenhouse gases.....how could "If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half." be anything but a misrepresentation of the effects of dietary changes?
chownah

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:15 am

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:59 am
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:58 am
The dietary fix.
... If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half.

So say the scientists behind a new study published in Nature, who predicted that in 2050, sticking to a plant-based diet, with just one portion of red meat a week, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 56%.

The report found that sticking to a “flexitarian diet” was one of three ways – alongside improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste – we could limit the food system’s impact on climate change, water scarcity and pollution in the coming decades. ...
:reading: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/ ... lexitarian

:namaste:
Kim
I found on the internet that agriculture contributes about 10% of greenhouse gases.....how could "If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half." be anything but a misrepresentation of the effects of dietary changes?
chownah
"I found on the internet" is not a reference, and I'm not even going to challenge its claim, although I do think it's wrong.
chownah wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:47 am
... If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half.

So say the scientists behind a new study published in Nature, who predicted that in 2050, sticking to a plant-based diet, with just one portion of red meat a week, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 56%.

The report found that sticking to a “flexitarian diet” was one of three ways – alongside improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste – we could limit the food system’s impact on climate change, water scarcity and pollution in the coming decades. ...
I think this is misleading.....first it says being meatless most of the week would cut emissions by more than half.......but then it says this would be happening in 2050.....what does this mean?
chownah
Have you looked beyond the news item to the study which it summarises? Any study published in Nature is pretty sure to be top quality research. I can't say the same about any journalism reporting on such studies, so in case of doubt I look for the original. Can you do the same?

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by chownah » Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:07 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:15 am
chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:59 am
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:58 am
The dietary fix.

:reading: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/ ... lexitarian

:namaste:
Kim
I found on the internet that agriculture contributes about 10% of greenhouse gases.....how could "If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half." be anything but a misrepresentation of the effects of dietary changes?
chownah
"I found on the internet" is not a reference, and I'm not even going to challenge its claim, although I do think it's wrong.
I wasn't trying to provide an accurate estimate I was just trying to show how ludicruous it is to think that "If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half." For this statement to be true it would mean that raising livestock for meat consumption must create over half of the greenhouse gases!!!....and this doesn't include livestock raised for milk, cheese, butter, and eggs!!!! I didn't think I need an accurate estimate but just a ball park guess at what agriculture adds to greenhouse gasses to show how ridiculous that statemetn is.....even if agricultures emissions were 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 percent of the total then the statement "If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half." would be patently false.

The title of the article you brought is "The unbelievably simple way to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half"
It is unbelievably simple because it is hog wash.....
chownah

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:36 pm

chownah wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:07 pm
...
The title of the article you brought is "The unbelievably simple way to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half"
It is unbelievably simple because it is hog wash.....
chownah
If it's wrong, it's the journalist's error, not the scientists' error.
kim wrote:Have you looked beyond the news item to the study which it summarises? Any study published in Nature is pretty sure to be top quality research. I can't say the same about any journalism reporting on such studies, so in case of doubt I look for the original. Can you do the same?
Emphasis added!

:coffee:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by chownah » Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:30 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:36 pm
kim wrote:Have you looked beyond the news item to the study which it summarises? Any study published in Nature is pretty sure to be top quality research. I can't say the same about any journalism reporting on such studies, so in case of doubt I look for the original. Can you do the same?
Emphasis added!
Yes, I have read the article "Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding
planetary boundaries" which was refernce in the news article.....among other things I found this:
Agriculture contributes ~5.0 to 5.8 Gt CO2e yr-1, based on the 100-year global warming potential, or ~11% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, not including agriculturally driven land use change (Smith et al. 2014).
As far as I can tell "smith et al. 2014 refers to "Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. "
While I didn't state my source when I mentioned (casually) that agricultures contribution was about 10% it does seem that there is some kind of credibility to that figure although having looked around more it seems to be on the low side and perhaps 15 to 20 percent is more accurate taking into account all the associated effects (note that smith et al specifically did not include agriculturally driven land use change which goes some way to explain the low estimate).
At any rate even using the 20% figure (or heck use 40% if you want to although I think that would be on the high side a bit too far) the statement in the news article that "If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half." can be seen to be grossly in error. If ALL of agriculture contributes 20% (or 40%) it would then be impossible for some fraction of all agriculture (raising of animals) to reduce greenhouse emission by more than half.....mathemtically impossible....even if ALL of agriculture was magically transformed to produce no emissions it would only lower the emission of greenhouse emissions by 20% (or 40%).

I'm really stumped as to why you don't seem to recognize this.
chownah

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Dec 06, 2018 11:31 am

chownah wrote:
Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:30 am
... I'm really stumped as to why you don't seem to recognize this.
chownah
Let me just re-post a few bits of the article with emphasis added:
WEForum wrote: The unbelievably simple way to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the food sector in half

If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions from the food sector by more than half.
So say the scientists behind a new study published in Nature, who predicted that in 2050, sticking to a plant-based diet, with just one portion of red meat a week, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to food by 56%.


But what you posted a couple of days ago and have been trying to prove ever since was:
I found on the internet that agriculture contributes about 10% of greenhouse gases.....how could "If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half." be anything but a misrepresentation of the effects of dietary changes?
chownah
If you compare that to the original, you will notice a difference which turns out to be critical, i.e. the difference between "we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half" (your version) and "we could cut greenhouse gas emissions from the food sector by more than half" (theirs).

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by chownah » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:25 pm

Good! I think that the mistake they made has been brought to their attention and they have corrected it.
You say:
"we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half" (your version)
....but this was not "my version".....it is "your version"....it was copied and pasted from your post which started this discussion.
You posted:
Kim O'Hara wrote: ↑
Fri Nov 30, 2018 5:58 pm
The dietary fix. 

... If we all swapped beef burgers and bacon sandwiches for vegetarian alternatives most of the week, we could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than half.

So say the scientists behind a new study published in Nature, who predicted that in 2050, sticking to a plant-based diet, with just one portion of red meat a week, could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 56%.

The report found that sticking to a “flexitarian diet” was one of three ways – alongside improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste – we could limit the food system’s impact on climate change, water scarcity and pollution in the coming decades. ...
:reading: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/ ... lexitarian
What you posted does not containt the added text "from the food sector " nor the added text "related to food ".....the first thing I did when I looked at the article was to verify if their claims were about only food related emissions and I verified that they did not contain that stipulation.....something that can be easily seen from portion you posted Nov 30th.

Also....I posted on Dec 6:
chownah wrote: ↑
Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:07 pm
...
The title of the article you brought is "The unbelievably simple way to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half"
It is unbelievably simple because it is hog wash.....
chownah
The title (The unbelievably simple way to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half) was a copy and paste directly from the article which I remember very well because I noticed that while the article title was all caps the pasted version was not but I decided to leave it......the new title is:
The unbelievably simple way to cut greenhouse gas emissions from the food sector in half
...so you can see that the title has been changed as well.
I'm glad that some has informed them of their error and that they have corrected it......but they still have misrepresented the study from which they reference. The article is written in such a way that people are going to think that if right now everyone was to chose the flexitarian diet that it would reduce greenhouse emission by more than half but the article in Nature does not claim that and does not even talk about what effects a world wide adoption of that diet now would do now with regard to greenhouse gas emissions....it only talks about a what might happen in 2050 if a long list of expectations should happen to come about....it does not address present conditions, effects, or outcomes.

I maintain, as I have done throughout that the original statements in the article (which you presented in your first post on this subject) can be seen to be absolutely untennable......I am glad that they have corrected this error.....I doubt that they will rewrite it to indicte that their statements do not apply to the present but only to a hypothetical scenario for 2050.
chownah

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 735
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:47 pm

Thanks (and congratulations) for sorting that out.

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change mitigation and adaptation - omnibus thread

Post by chownah » Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:54 am

I think it best to post a bit more about the food related article (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/ ... lexitarian).

I think the article was meant as an encouragement for people to change their dietary habits as one way to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions......and I think it is good to give people encouragement to do this. The downside of the article as it originally appeared (with the grossly incorrect information it presented) is that:
1. It was just plain wrong and it is best if wrong statements be avoided.
2. It will lead to some people going out and repeating those false claims which (when people who know how wrong those claims are hear these claims repeated) will diminish their credibility not only for themselves but for climate change activists in general.
3. It will lead some people to think that by being vegetarian (nearly) that they have done way more than most people have done just by the fact that they are vegetarian (nearly) and so they will not pursue changing their lifestyle in other ways....in short being complacent about the other issues which are much bigger factors and which are having a much bigger impact on greenhouse gas emission.

.....but people who want to know how much effect being vegetarian has on ghg(greenhouse gase) emissions has on the total emissions have no information.....it certainly is not more than half as was originally stated in the article and the changes in the article did not give a corrected estimate of the effect.

There are many things to consider in making a new assessment and in this post I will give a rough way of estimating it.

The emissions from agriculture was estimated in 2014 (I previously presented the reference) at being about 11% but with a stipulation that not all of the indirect emissions were included. If anyone looks around on the internet they will probably find that higher percents are often quoted. I'm not going to try to pin down some exact number (really, no one know exactly) but from what I've read 15% is a likely number and 20% is likely on the high side.....a big difference in the numbers found on the internet is in exactly what is included (is land use change included?...is consumers fuel use in driving to buy the food incuded?....etc.). Also note that I am using the contribution of AGRICULTURE as estimated and not the contribution for FOOD so the estimate for food will be higher than my estimates for agriculture which is why I will go with the 20% figure.....if you want it is easy to use 25% or whatever number you favor.

The article (as corrected) claims that based on a study from nature that about 50% of emissions from food would be eliminate if everyone followed a flexitarian diet (90% reduction in beef and pork consumption along with other healthy measures). So.....simple math shows that if food contributes 20% of the emissions and it is cut by 50% (in half) then the reduction of overall ghg emissions which that change would produce is 10%.

Now, a 10% reduction is definitely significant and worth pursuing....but it can be seen that it in itself is not nearly going to get us near the goal.....by itself not nearly what the mistakenly declared 50% would have meant if it was accurate (which it is not).

This is a rough estimate and meant to just give us some kind of perspective which is based on realistic estimates rather than the grossly mistaken reporting of the article as originally presented.
chownah

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests