|
|
Net Zero
Jun 4, 2023 8:36:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by oracle75 on Jun 4, 2023 8:36:03 GMT
ISTM this isnt enough.
It actually means that forms of pollution will not increase. We will remain at the same level as today, whenever someone decides when that is.
Yet scientists say we are already polluting too much. The earth is warming already and there will be a time drag on effects even if we turn off all forms of pollution tomorrow.
Nevertheless there is a general global agreement among the most developed countries to reach net zero by 2050.
Is this possible?
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 6, 2023 16:52:12 GMT
ISTM this isnt enough. It actually means that forms of pollution will not increase. We will remain at the same level as today, whenever someone decides when that is. Yet scientists say we are already polluting too much. The earth is warming already and there will be a time drag on effects even if we turn off all forms of pollution tomorrow. Nevertheless there is a general global agreement among the most developed countries to reach net zero by 2050. Is this possible? I think its unlikely we will get to net zero by 2050, but its a target and better than none. I do think we will need to use carbon capture to reverse climate change and science is moving us in that direction. The discovery that Basalt naturally captures Co2 when ground and spread is a leap forward. It also acts as a fertiliser so the costs of spreading it are muted by the fact it replaces other fertilisers. And, many people focus on the target 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, but there is no upper limit on the earths temperature and any number of difficult to reverse trigger points. So whatever stage we manage to stop global warming is better than doing nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 6, 2023 17:20:28 GMT
ISTM this isnt enough. It actually means that forms of pollution will not increase. We will remain at the same level as today, whenever someone decides when that is. Yet scientists say we are already polluting too much. The earth is warming already and there will be a time drag on effects even if we turn off all forms of pollution tomorrow. Nevertheless there is a general global agreement among the most developed countries to reach net zero by 2050. Is this possible? Why isn't it enough. Not it doesn't - Net zero is only about CO2 Do they. Yes the earth has been warming for the last 15,000 years or so. That's what happens during an interglacial period. Is net zero possible, of course. Is it the right goal - debateable. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 6, 2023 17:45:08 GMT
ISTM this isnt enough. It actually means that forms of pollution will not increase. We will remain at the same level as today, whenever someone decides when that is. Yet scientists say we are already polluting too much. The earth is warming already and there will be a time drag on effects even if we turn off all forms of pollution tomorrow. Nevertheless there is a general global agreement among the most developed countries to reach net zero by 2050. Is this possible? I think its unlikely we will get to net zero by 2050, but its a target and better than none. I do think we will need to use carbon capture to reverse climate change and science is moving us in that direction. The discovery that Basalt naturally captures Co2 when ground and spread is a leap forward. It also acts as a fertiliser so the costs of spreading it are muted by the fact it replaces other fertilisers. And, many people focus on the target 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, but there is no upper limit on the earths temperature and any number of difficult to reverse trigger points. So whatever stage we manage to stop global warming is better than doing nothing. What's the cost of accessing basalt before you even grind it? How much do we have in the UK? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 6, 2023 19:14:34 GMT
I think its unlikely we will get to net zero by 2050, but its a target and better than none. I do think we will need to use carbon capture to reverse climate change and science is moving us in that direction. The discovery that Basalt naturally captures Co2 when ground and spread is a leap forward. It also acts as a fertiliser so the costs of spreading it are muted by the fact it replaces other fertilisers. And, many people focus on the target 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, but there is no upper limit on the earths temperature and any number of difficult to reverse trigger points. So whatever stage we manage to stop global warming is better than doing nothing. What's the cost of accessing basalt before you even grind it? How much do we have in the UK? Basalt is the most common rock in the world, its the result of volcanic action so its on the surface. So any country that has seen volcanic action will have basalt. But this is not about the UK its about the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 6, 2023 19:18:39 GMT
What's the cost of accessing basalt before you even grind it? How much do we have in the UK? Basalt is the most common rock in the world, its the result of volcanic action so its on the surface. So any country that has seen volcanic action will have basalt. But this is not about the UK its about the world. I think you'll find that basalt is usually found in the seabed. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 6, 2023 19:33:10 GMT
Basalt is the most common rock in the world, its the result of volcanic action so its on the surface. So any country that has seen volcanic action will have basalt. But this is not about the UK its about the world. I think you'll find that basalt is usually found in the seabed. I think you'll find its also found on the sea bed. But then there's a lot more sea bed than not sea bed. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 6, 2023 20:06:31 GMT
I like zany's basalt idea.
My intuition tells me the costs of mining and processing the stuff in the amounts needed would make it non-starter
I think my fag packet maths put the amount needed annually at about 1/4 the mass of Everest
I hear Everest looks a lot bigger in real life than it does in the photographs
|
|
roots
Full Member
Posts: 116
|
Net Zero
Jun 6, 2023 20:08:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by roots on Jun 6, 2023 20:08:30 GMT
I think its unlikely we will get to net zero by 2050, but its a target and better than none. I do think we will need to use carbon capture to reverse climate change and science is moving us in that direction. The discovery that Basalt naturally captures Co2 when ground and spread is a leap forward. It also acts as a fertiliser so the costs of spreading it are muted by the fact it replaces other fertilisers. And, many people focus on the target 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius, but there is no upper limit on the earths temperature and any number of difficult to reverse trigger points. So whatever stage we manage to stop global warming is better than doing nothing. What's the cost of accessing basalt before you even grind it? How much do we have in the UK? Shush, there's people hoping to make a Killing selling rock dust to ignorant frightened children. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 6, 2023 20:10:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 6, 2023 20:21:39 GMT
I like zany's basalt idea. My intuition tells me the costs of mining and processing the stuff in the amounts needed would make it non-starter I think my fag packet maths put the amount needed annually at about 1/4 the mass of Everest I hear Everest looks a lot bigger in real life than it does in the photographs Love your new avatar Mags. Blakes seven. I think the fact that it can be used as a fertiliser (if true) is the game changer. The cost of mining and spreading basalt can't be more expensive than producing fertiliser and spreading it. And what are your fag packet calcs based on? Covering the whole planet, absorbing all the Co2? |
|
