"THE ANTHROPOLOGIST explores climate change like no other film before. The fate of the planet is considered from the perspective of American teenager Katie Crate. Over the course of five years, she travels alongside her mother Susie, an anthropologist studying the impact of climate change on indigenous communities. Their journey parallels that of renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead, who for decades sought to understand how global change affects remote cultures."
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Climate Change Fight |OT|
- Thread starter Pomerlaw
- Start date
- Status
"THE ANTHROPOLOGIST explores climate change like no other film before. The fate of the planet is considered from the perspective of American teenager Katie Crate. Over the course of five years, she travels alongside her mother Susie, an anthropologist studying the impact of climate change on indigenous communities. Their journey parallels that of renowned anthropologist Margaret Mead, who for decades sought to understand how global change affects remote cultures."
I was better about eating less meat, slowly going veggie and moving to alternative milk options like soy & almond.
Then I moved in with my girlfriend and she became very resistant to those things :-(
It's a compromise, we eat "healthier" than she did, but less than I did?
I dunno, I just liked the track I was on before when it came to more planet friendly eating.
Then I moved in with my girlfriend and she became very resistant to those things :-(
It's a compromise, we eat "healthier" than she did, but less than I did?
I dunno, I just liked the track I was on before when it came to more planet friendly eating.
It's worth keeping in mind, for sure. However, looking up emissions per kwh for the Netherlands electric grid (around 400gCO2) and the km/kwh efficiency of modern EVs (around 5.5), EVs do tend to win out over even the most efficient gas or deisel powered cars, having around 73g/km based on the figures above vs 80+ for supermini fuel economy specialists like the Suzuki Celerio or the Renault Clio. Not sure how that reflects on plug-in hybrids, though, since I'm not sure about the efficiency of their combustion engines since those stats weren't easy to find.
So while it's not carbon free, it's still marginally better than the gas powered alternative. Now if you were living in West Virginia or North Dakota, that'd be a different story, you probably would be better off going high efficiency gas because of the disturbingly high CO2/kwh stats (800g+? Christ).
Actually I believe you should take the national or even global energy mix as a basis. Renewable energy used for your electric car will result in more energy produced somewhere else that comes from coal or whatever.
That is even true for Norway. Electricity used for electric cars there couldn't be exported to Germany where we reduce nuclear energy in favor of coal at least until renewable energy can replace nuclear.
Electric cars are not the solution short term, more energy efficient cars and using them less often is.
OP
OP
New catalyst opens door to CO2 capture in conversion of coal to liquid fuels
Summary:
World energy consumption projections expect coal to stay one of the world's main energy sources in the coming decades, and a growing share of it will be used in CTL, the conversion of coal to liquid fuels. Researchers have developed iron-based catalysts that substantially reduce operating costs and open the door to capturing the large amounts of CO2 that are generated by CTL.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181012143024.htm
Summary:
World energy consumption projections expect coal to stay one of the world's main energy sources in the coming decades, and a growing share of it will be used in CTL, the conversion of coal to liquid fuels. Researchers have developed iron-based catalysts that substantially reduce operating costs and open the door to capturing the large amounts of CO2 that are generated by CTL.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181012143024.htm
This sounds like a pretty big deal that can and probably will lead to more breakthroughs in the future. Anything at all that can be done to reduce the emissions caused by coal is a good thing because we're not going to go 100% off coal for at least another 20-30 years, and that's being optimistic. So the next best thing is going to be figuring out ways to filter out and eliminate if possible any CO2 from the emissions as they're generated.
Right now this catalyst is specifically for use in the coal-to-liquid conversion process, but like most scientific breakthroughs there are takeaways from this research that can and most likely will be tested for use in other solutions. Namely the properties of this catalyst - it acts as a carbon sink, and when it is figured out how to apply it in different situations outside of CTL we'll have a major breakthrough on our hands.
Dumb question here.
Does planting more trees do anything to combat climate change and rising CO2 levels? Or is the only way to reduce our emissions entirely?
Does planting more trees do anything to combat climate change and rising CO2 levels? Or is the only way to reduce our emissions entirely?
Plants and trees are carbon sinks, they take in CO2 and output Oxygen. So in theory yes, they will reduce CO2 levels. The problem is, however, due to the sheer overwhelming amount of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere already and compounded with the amount we put in year over year, they don't do enough.
Massive scale reforestation efforts can make a difference, but they can't be the only solution. Ideally what should and will happen is a combination of efforts:
- Carbon reduction is a must - renewables and nuclear energy are the best way to see a wide-scale drop, as energy generation contributes to roughly 72% of global emissions. Regulations here will help, but the real driver of clean energy is going to be cost. Right now I signed up for a clean electricity generation provider and there was a roughly 2% increase in cost for doing so. This would have been a 75% or greater bump a decade ago, and it's only getting cheaper. Green energy adoption isn't a matter of if, but when.
- Reforestation and other natural carbon sinks. Other plans I've seen floated around are algae ponds, as algae eats carbon! There is plenty of open land that we can use for these endeavors, however these plans are usually at odds with corporate interest (they'd rather put a factory, farm, residential or commercial real estate, etc.) or NIMBYs depending on where we're talking about. This is going to need strict regulation.
- Carbon stripping tech. While this technology exists now and is very promising, it's inefficient and expensive to utilize. It has gotten cheaper, but right now optimistically it will cost over $3 trillion per year to remove carbon in the capacity we'd need it to function at. We've been putting carbon into the atmosphere for over 200 years, and there are GIGATONS of it up there, so this is a very costly endeavor. However, this cost will only go down over the decades, and especially over centuries as the technology gets more advanced. It isn't far-fetched at all to think that by 2100-2150 it will be much more economical to run wide-scale stripping operations and begin a possible reverse-course.
- Geoengineering, which as the name would suggest is literally engineering the earth and the climate itself. We've arguably been - at first inadvertently - geoengineering our climate for 200 years by pumping all of the carbon out there and warming it up. The idea behind this is that we can implement other counter measures to prevent more warming in the future. There are techniques we know are effective now such as stratospheric aerosol injection, where we'd be using balloons or some other delivery method to inject sulfate gasses into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of solar radiation that makes it through, and counters any warming. It is important to note that climate scientists are cautiously optimistic about this because while in theory and in limited testing it was proven effective, there's no way to know without implementing it what kind of impact it would have when applied to the entire planet. For that reason, geoengineering efforts are considered as a last-ditch effort to prevent a complete apocalypse scenario from occurring. Smaller scale geoengineering such as concentrating it to strictly the arctic region however, could be a safeguard from extreme sea-level rise.
Last edited:
OP
OP
For my next step in carbon footprints, I've been looking into streaming vs. DVDs, as well as the costs of delivery. From what I've read -- here's one study citing researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and McCormick School of Engineering -- the emissions are close enough to render it a case-by-case basis. More research may be needed on my end, but I'm thinking I'll stick to DVDs for anime (iTunes seems to only host dubs), stream Crunchyroll for ones I haven't watched, and stick to downloading other stuff from iTunes.
Been also reading up on delivery vs. store purchase; so far, it seems case-by-case too, although carbon emissions from round-trips via car give the emission edge to the latter. Thankfully, I don't drive, but as I was in the market for new pizza following the Papa John's scandals, I think I'll just stick with frozen to avoid just that.
Finally, I've taken care to turn my computer off every night. Baby steps!
Waiting until it hits you right in the face will be inevitable for many, sadly. Whatever works!
Been also reading up on delivery vs. store purchase; so far, it seems case-by-case too, although carbon emissions from round-trips via car give the emission edge to the latter. Thankfully, I don't drive, but as I was in the market for new pizza following the Papa John's scandals, I think I'll just stick with frozen to avoid just that.
Finally, I've taken care to turn my computer off every night. Baby steps!
Waiting until it hits you right in the face will be inevitable for many, sadly. Whatever works!
Last edited:
OP
OP
OP
OP
When Shell is actually the good guy... wtf
https://www.axios.com/shell-epa-oba...eal-4373f3c3-1f87-4791-9873-ec516a76f5a6.html
OP
OP
Co signed
Don't worry I had three. That's enough for a few of you.
OP
OP
OP
OP
https://www.sciencealert.com/scient...RtxLXF4vvUZ0G0Kyz8gCZn97fAkWuiaY06OtJruH82HAQ
Scientists Develop Liquid Fuel That Can Store The Sun's Energy For Up to 18 Years
CARLY CASSELLA
6 NOV 2018
No matter how abundant or renewable, solar power has a thorn in its side. There is still no cheap and efficient long-term storage for the energy that it generates.
The solar industry has been snagged on this branch for a while, but in the past year alone, a series of four papers has ushered in an intriguing new solution.
Scientists in Sweden have developed a specialised fluid, called a solar thermal fuel, that can store energy from the sun for well over a decade.
"A solar thermal fuel is like a rechargeable battery, but instead of electricity, you put sunlight in and get heat out, triggered on demand," Jeffrey Grossman, an engineer works with these materials at MIT explained to NBC News.
The fluid is actually a molecule in liquid form that scientists from Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden have been working on improving for over a year.
This molecule is composed of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, and when it is hit by sunlight, it does something unusual: the bonds between its atoms are rearranged and it turns into an energised new version of itself, called an isomer.
Like prey caught in a trap, energy from the sun is thus captured between the isomer's strong chemical bonds, and it stays there even when the molecule cools down to room temperature.
When the energy is needed - say at nighttime, or during winter - the fluid is simply drawn through a catalyst that returns the molecule to its original form, releasing energy in the form of heat.
"The energy in this isomer can now be stored for up to 18 years," says one of the team, nanomaterials scientist Kasper Moth-Poulsen from Chalmers University.
"And when we come to extract the energy and use it, we get a warmth increase which is greater than we dared hope for."
A prototype of the energy system, placed on the roof of a university building, has put the new fluid to the test, and according to the researchers, the results have caught the attention of numerous investors.
(Chalmers University of Technology)
The renewable, emissions-free energy device is made up of a concave reflector with a pipe in the centre, which tracks the Sun like a sort-of satellite dish.
The system works in a circular manner. Pumping through transparent tubes, the fluid is heated up by the sunlight, turning the molecule norbornadiene into its heat-trapping isomer, quadricyclane. The fluid is then stored at room temperature with minimal energy loss.
When the energy is needed, the fluid is filtered through a special catalyst that converts the molecules back to their original form, warming the liquid by 63 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit).
The hope is that this warmth can be used for domestic heating systems, powering a building's water heater, dishwasher, clothes dryer and much more, before heading back to the roof once again.
The researchers have put the fluid through this cycle more than 125 times, picking up heat and dropping it off without significant damage to the molecule.
"We have made many crucial advances recently, and today we have an emissions-free energy system which works all year around," says Moth-Poulsen.
After a series of rapid developments, the researchers claim their fluid can now hold 250 watt-hours of energy per kilogram, which is double the the energy capacity of Tesla's Powerwall batteries, according to the NBC.
But there's still plenty of room for improvement. With the right manipulations, the researchers think they can get even more heat out of this system, at least 110 degrees Celsius (230 degrees Fahrenheit) more.
"There is a lot left to do. We have just got the system to work. Now we need to ensure everything is optimally designed," says Moth-Poulsen.
If all goes as planned, Moth-Poulsen thinks the technology could be available for commercial use within 10 years.
The most recent study in the series has been published in Energy & Environmental Science.
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
As much as I hope these kinds of new technologies can help us, there's generally a pretty long lag time between this kind of prototyping and real, scalable technology. We have seen a million headlines on battery technology, for instance, and very few that actually made it into real-world applications.
I know this is the hopeful climate change thread, but I don't want people to place too much faith on any of this as of yet. Just gonna break your heart.
I know this is the hopeful climate change thread, but I don't want people to place too much faith on any of this as of yet. Just gonna break your heart.
Seems Trump isn't the only president capable of making dumb statements in relation to climate change this week.
GOP are a lost cause on climate change, so hearing any of them saying something dumb is just whatever to me at this point, but Obama fucking bragging about turning the US into the largest oil producer is just despicable.
GOP are a lost cause on climate change, so hearing any of them saying something dumb is just whatever to me at this point, but Obama fucking bragging about turning the US into the largest oil producer is just despicable.
Also thank him for futzing around and not working with his Democratic majorities in each house to sign significant climate reform into law. Implementing his policy at an executive bureaucratic level just set it up to be hand-waved away by the Cheeto like so many other policies.
I just found this great thread, seems like a good place to ask this.
My airline has a programme called "CO2ZERO" which is a donation you can choose to make with each flight that you book. They claim that the donation helps to offset the CO2 emissions from your individual journey by financing the development of clean energy projects in developing countries. It costs almost nothing relative to the cost of each flight. Anyone know if the claims of such programmes are legit?
Doing 2-4 round-trip flights per year is probably the worst thing I do, but their aren't really any other practical options of travel for the places I go.
My airline has a programme called "CO2ZERO" which is a donation you can choose to make with each flight that you book. They claim that the donation helps to offset the CO2 emissions from your individual journey by financing the development of clean energy projects in developing countries. It costs almost nothing relative to the cost of each flight. Anyone know if the claims of such programmes are legit?
Doing 2-4 round-trip flights per year is probably the worst thing I do, but their aren't really any other practical options of travel for the places I go.
That program looks generally legit, but if you want a really good place to offset emissions check out CoolEffect. They have an extensive verification process, over 90% of the money goes directly to the project, it combines with other UN SDGs, and you can choose which project you want to fund.
OP
OP
Maybe I'm wrong about this but isn't it ultimately better to protect old growth than to plant new trees? Are there any initiatives to buy up forest to protect it?
Small bump.
Long story short, I would love to make a documontary about something climate change related. It's a very interesting topic in my opinion, and I would love to somehow contribute in making people aware. I'll be honest: I'm quite hypocrite because I still eat meat and fly a lot. I work as a filmmaker and I think storytelling is a great way to make people aware. No I'm not going to save the world. But everything starts with being awareness and I am happy if I can contribute in this way. I have access to good gear (+ other people that want to help me). However, it's such a big, intangible subject (my knowledge in this topic is very limited) and we're all sick of the "oh we are fucking up the Earth blabla" stories.
What my question is: does anyone have ideas/inspiration about what would be a interesting//new/fresh topic regards climate change? All inspiration is welcome.
Long story short, I would love to make a documontary about something climate change related. It's a very interesting topic in my opinion, and I would love to somehow contribute in making people aware. I'll be honest: I'm quite hypocrite because I still eat meat and fly a lot. I work as a filmmaker and I think storytelling is a great way to make people aware. No I'm not going to save the world. But everything starts with being awareness and I am happy if I can contribute in this way. I have access to good gear (+ other people that want to help me). However, it's such a big, intangible subject (my knowledge in this topic is very limited) and we're all sick of the "oh we are fucking up the Earth blabla" stories.
What my question is: does anyone have ideas/inspiration about what would be a interesting//new/fresh topic regards climate change? All inspiration is welcome.
OP
OP
Depends. The trees have to grow, that's when they store carbon. Older trees can die and release the carbon they had. I think the key is management, like cut those trees before they die to make houses and buildings, so the carbon in their trunks doesn't get released.
Young trees catch less carbon, but with time, they capture more and more. I think mangroves are the best at capturing carbon because they store it in their roots.
IMO it is young people actually suing governments around the world over climate change :
https://qz.com/1334102/kids-around-...ernments-over-climate-change-and-its-working/
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/03/kids-sue-us-government-climate-change/
https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/young-quebecers-sue-canada-for-climate-negligence
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
Great thread!
Easiest step I took lately was to practically only drink tap water. Of course, it depends on the quality of your tap water. I've gotten used to it real quickly. I only drink one glass of soy milk and like two cups of tea all day. Other than that, just tap water all day. Saves so many bottles / cartons, transportation, production.
If you can't stand tap water, get a Sodastream or use other ways to add flavor to your water.
Easiest step I took lately was to practically only drink tap water. Of course, it depends on the quality of your tap water. I've gotten used to it real quickly. I only drink one glass of soy milk and like two cups of tea all day. Other than that, just tap water all day. Saves so many bottles / cartons, transportation, production.
If you can't stand tap water, get a Sodastream or use other ways to add flavor to your water.
I would say yes, but not for purely carbon purposes. old growth forests are gold standard for biodiversity / conservation...and climate change action needs to be well integrated with other agendas. I genuinely think we will fail to mitigate dangerous climate change in any meaningful way if we fail to grasp that the eco crisis is about more than just carbon. In fact, I view climate change as a subset of the eco crisis.
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
OP
Does anyone else think that the argument against electric cars in regards to how the electricity is generated is disingenuous? I believe the theoretical maximum efficiency of a combustion engine is around 14%; the rest of the energy in the gasoline is exhausted as waste heat. A power plant much more efficiently converts fossil fuels into electricity than an ICE converts them into motion. Even if the electricity used to charge an EV comes from coal or gas it takes that energy and uses 80-90% of it for motion.
This is great and shows how we should do everything we can to change this world, even if it is an individual action, as it could become something more.
OP
OP
- Status