Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

He's good but he's hardly a God.

[GloryofGreece]

loool Las Vegas coalition of Reason... I love it when Secular Humanists try to pretend that their belief system is based on reason,

It's so pretentious and ironic. It would be hilarious if it wasn't potentially so dsngerous. No humility all Faustian.

[The Conservative]

page 12

It may
be chall engi ng to col lect dat a from
these
overseas
operations
so you may
wish
to init ially
f
ocus
on measur
ing and cal culat ing emissions
from
UK operations.
Howev
er, you should
make
best
endeav
ours
to col lec t dat a from
overseas
operations
to give
a complet
e picture
of your
operati
ons in line wit h your
financ
ial reports.
You wil l need
to make
it clear
when
reporting
your
tot al gl obal
greenhouse
gas em issions
any geographical
areas
you hav e not included

Sorry, you are saying something worth mentioning, I don't read moron.

[SuburbanFarmer]

DDD5E475-00D4-4005-ACA8-1C6D4D3B84CE.jpeg

[Hastur]

That carbon labelling will not work. The footprint keeps changing. Take some frozen peas as an example. They are almost exclusively grown in the most southern part of Sweden. As soon as they are harvested they are frozen, packaged and stored pretty close to where they were grown. You could add up all the carbon cost at that point and put it on the label but as soon as it gets shipped somewhere the cost goes up. If it goes to the north of Sweden in a freezer truck it will have a substantially bigger footprint than if it is sold nearby. Also if it remains in stock for any prolonged time it will keep getting bigger as energy is used by the store's freezer.

Another example could be a used car. What is the carbon footprint of a ten-year-old car? You would have to calculate the original footprint and then deduct whatever part of the car's lifespan has passed. Is that the right way of thinking? Should the future cost of scrapping the car be included?

What is the cost of throwing something away compared to selling it or giving it away? If you, for example, buy a new TV set when you have a fully functioning one you want to replace.

What if you walk to the store, take the car, the bus or order it online? Different carbon footprint.

If I buy an audiobook, should the CO2 exhaled by the narrator during the read be calculated?

[Otern]

That carbon labelling will not work. The footprint keeps changing. Take some frozen peas as an example. They are almost exclusively grown in the most southern part of Sweden. As soon as they are harvested they are frozen, packaged and stored pretty close to where they were grown. You could add up all the carbon cost at that point and put it on the label but as soon as it gets shipped somewhere the cost goes up. If it goes to the north of Sweden in a freezer truck it will have a substantially bigger footprint than if it is sold nearby. Also if it remains in stock for any prolonged time it will keep getting bigger as energy is used by the store's freezer.

Another example could be a used car. What is the carbon footprint of a ten-year-old car? You would have to calculate the original footprint and then deduct whatever part of the car's lifespan has passed. Is that the right way of thinking? Should the future cost of scrapping the car be included?

What is the cost of throwing something away compared to selling it or giving it away? If you, for example, buy a new TV set when you have a fully functioning one you want to replace.

What if you walk to the store, take the car, the bus or order it online? Different carbon footprint.

If I buy an audiobook, should the CO2 exhaled by the narrator during the read be calculated?

You don't actually have to make carbon footprint labeling that complicated. Since the only carbon released having a negative effect on the atmosphere are the fossil fuels, and concrete production. Basically, calculate the carbon released from fossil sources, and it's better than anything else.

So no, you don't take the CO2 exhaled into account, as that came from the atmosphere a couple days/months/years anyway, and got into vegetation, which later got into food, or our food's food.

But, while this carbon labeling makes more sense than anything else, it doesn't take into account other negative aspects of consumption. For example, biofuel would be carbon neutral in this regard, and not carbon taxed. And that's great. However, agricultural land which could be used to produce food, will now instead be used to produce biofuel, making food more expensive, especially for poor countries.

(BTW, had my final exam in renewable energy yesterday, think it went well)

[Montegriffo]

(BTW, had my final exam in renewable energy yesterday, think it went well)

What are you studying Otern and to what end?

[Hastur]

The climate doesn't care if the CO2 is from a fossil or renewable source. It's the total amount released that matters. The thinking that using renewable instead of fossil leads to less use of fossil isn't true if the use of fossil doesn't actually decrease. If you not burning the oil just leads to someone else burning it instead nothing changes. A low oil price just makes it more affordable for poorer people in less developed countries to use more of it.



Renewable fuel is just feel good sauce. Without the subventions (financed by consumption of fossil fuel) no one would buy it. One time in the future when we run out of oil we might have to depend on it so it's good that we are researching and trying stuff out but right now it has little effect beyond the symbolism and virtue signalling.

[Ph64]

The climate doesn't care if the CO2 is from a fossil or renewable source. It's the total amount released that matters. The thinking that using renewable instead of fossil leads to less use of fossil isn't true if the use of fossil doesn't actually decrease. If you not burning the oil just leads to someone else burning it instead nothing changes. A low oil price just makes it more affordable for poorer people in less developed countries to use more of it.



Renewable fuel is just feel good sauce. Without the subventions (financed by consumption of fossil fuel) no one would buy it. One time in the future when we run out of oil we might have to depend on it so it's good that we are researching and trying stuff out but right now it has little effect beyond the symbolism and virtue signalling.

Your graph follows another graph fairly well...





More fossil fuel use & tech led to increased food production (and modern medicine, etc, that helped prolong life), leading to ability to support larger populations, which need more food produced, which leads to more fossil fuels used (as well as for those people to heat homes, drive cars, etc)...

All nice and fuzzy to think we'll go solar/wind/tidal or whatnot, but we need fossil fuels to dig up the resources needed to make those things. And some of those things, like lithium for battery storage, aren't easily supplied in vast amounts (supposedly lots of it... in Afghanistan ). Meanwhile the population keeps increasing, which means more energy needed...

Better efficiency is good, but if your efficiency gains don't keep up with population growth then you will keep needing more and more energy. Meaning you can't just "replace" existing fossil fuels with green alternatives but that you have to outpace the growth needed too. You're talking a "Manhattan Project" of moving to renewables on a global scale - government mandates that all new homes be built with solar panels, tied to the grid that also needs to be upgraded because banning of fossil fuel powered vehicles is gonna need a way more capable electrical grid than what we currently have... and regardless, a transition of that magnitude will take a bare minimum of 20 years, and that's with *serious* effort.

...and oh yeah, did I mention we're broke? Every economy in the world is in debt today. Where does the extra $quadrillion it's gonna take to do come from?

But don't worry, we're gonna label our food cans/boxes. That'll help.

...now excuse me, but I have some deck chairs to rearrange.

[Otern]

(BTW, had my final exam in renewable energy yesterday, think it went well)

What are you studying Otern and to what end?

Mechanical engineering.