IN combination with a full stop of producing CO2.
I read most of them. I'm very grateful for your posting them here.OP I hope I'm not ruining your thread by just spamming articles lol. I'm sure you had better things in mind. As long as some people read them though maybe it's a good little repository.
✊ 🌎 🌳 ✊I read most of them. I'm very grateful for your posting them here.
It has long been a point of contention: do individual actions make a difference, or are they pointless diversions? The question always is whether individual actions are like recycling, pointless diversions to make us feel better while the big corporations keep pumping out more CO2?
One new study, 1.5-Degree Lifestyles: Targets and options for reducing lifestyle carbon footprints from the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies and Aalto University, argues that in fact, our individual actions could add up to make a big difference. In fact, they suggest that we have no choice: "changes in consumption patterns and dominant lifestyles are a critical and integral part of the solutions package to address climate change."
In studying the lifestyles in a number of countries, the study finds that there are "hotspots" where individual changes would make the biggest difference:
Focusing efforts to change lifestyles in relation to these areas would yield the most benefits: meat and dairy consumption, fossil-fuel based energy, car use and air travel. The three domains these footprints occur in – nutrition, housing, and mobility – tend to have the largest impact (approximately 75%) on total lifestyle carbon footprints.
🌏 🌳 ✊Thanks for the topic and continuous updates signal - been here ages and only just seen it/
Good to see and keep it up
Hi there,
Thank you for signing up to this humble email!
I gave a presentation recently, at Amazon ReMARS. You may have seen it. And you may have heard me admit "I am a one-man carbon footprint nightmare colossus."
Yeah, I know. I gotta work on that. We ALL have to work on our carbon footprints.
And that is why we're here, together. Hi there. Hello.
I'm going to take the next 11 months to properly plan this coalition, and I'll keep you posted as we do it.
Thanks for joining me as I get this off the ground!
With gratitude, and more to come,
—Robert Downey Jr.
Keep spamming article, you're doing the god work here while his lazy ass on vacation.
This advice is mostly for property owners, but it's helpful all the same. Thanks.
Reasons to be fearful?
With exquisite timing, the likely UK COP in 2020 could also be the moment the US finally pulls out of the Paris agreement.
But if Donald Trump doesn't prevail in the presidential election that position could change, with a democrat victor likely to reverse the decision.
Either step could have huge consequences for the climate fight.
Right now a number of countries seem keen to slow down progress. Last December the US, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Russia blocked the IPCC special report on 1.5C from UN talks.
Just a few weeks ago in Bonn, further objections from Saudi Arabia meant it was again dropped from the UN negotiations, much to annoyance of small island states and developing nations.
Yes, climate change can be beaten by 2050. Here's how.
A carbon-free world can be a reality. What would that mean for our jobs, homes and lives?
Many pine trees in managed forests, such as the European spruce, take roughly 80 years to reach maturity, being net absorbers of carbon during those years of growth – but once they reach maturity, they shed roughly as much carbon through the decomposition of needles and fallen branches as they absorb. As was the case in Austria in the 1990s, plummeting demand for paper and wood saw huge swathes of managed forests globally fall into disuse. Rather than return to pristine wilderness, these monocrops cover forest floors in acidic pine needles and dead branches. Canada's great forests for example have actually emitted more carbon than they absorb since 2001, thanks to mature trees no longer being actively felled. Arguably, the best form of carbon sequestration is to chop down trees: to restore our sustainable, managed forests, and use the resulting wood as a building material. Managed forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) typically plant two to three trees for every tree felled – meaning the more demand there is for wood, the greater the growth in both forest cover and CO2-hungry young trees.
Looking more into mass tree planting, there seems to be some research about possible downsides, or at least lack of efficacy, in some areas, because of things like emissions released by trees and the increase light absorption negating the benefits of CO2 capture. While presumably still more positive than negative in most cases, no real problem with more research (urgency aside) and could just lead to more exact recommendations of things like tree species to use and most beneficial areas to plant.
Seeing clearly: Revised computer code accurately models an instability in fusion plasmas
In the future, the researchers want to determine what happens between instabilities to get a fuller sense of what's occuring in the plasma. In the meantime, Podestà and the other scientists are encouraged by the current results. "We now see a path forward to improving the ways that we can simulate certain mechanisms that disturb plasma particles," Podestà said. "This brings us closer to reliable and quantitative predictions for the performance of future fusion reactors."
Planting trees will help, but it is not the solution.Damn that's a bummer. We'll see what the future data will tell us but it seems planting trees may not be the great solution we though it was.
Pretty much.Well, I meant "one" solution. There is not one miraculous solution to this problem. It won't happen. We need hundreds of solutions.
Good thing in the near future we won't be using active secondary cooling loops full of lake water to mitigate fissile nuclear reactions. We will instead be using passive primary cooling loops full of the nuclear fuel dissolved in molten salt.