Month: May 2023

Prioritise methane to tackle GHG emissions

Whilst the world wrestles with the economic costs and societal implications of the push for Net Zero CO2 emissions, recent observations of our atmosphere are offering a much more targeted, cheaper and cost-effective way of limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Satellite observations have revealed that two major fossil fuel fields in Turkmenistan are emitting vast quantities of methane – 4.4 million tonnes a year – which because methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide means a global warming effect greater than that of the UK, and most other countries.

The environmental intelligence agency Kayrros reveal in the Guardian details of the “mind-boggling” methane emissions based on data released by NASA last year. It seems that Turkmenistan has been venting the methane rather than burning off the methane. Burning off, or flaring, can be detected by satellite but until now pinpointing precise sources of methane emission has not been possible.


Turkmenistan’s Methane Emissions. Image courtesy of NASA, JPL, Caltech.

Antonine Rostand president of Kayrros is quoted as saying, “Methane is responsible for almost half of short-term (climate) warming.”

Taking these findings into account alongside the recent suggestion that ozone-depleting substances are responsible for about a third of the warming leads to a simple yet startling conclusion.

It is that the quickest and most cost effective way to tackle the majority of greenhouse gas emissions is to go after methane and ozone-depleting substances emissions. Using satellites the hot spots of those outpourings can be readily pinpointed. This way tackling the much more difficult task of reducing conventional carbon dioxide emissions and their contribution to global warming can be considered in a less frantic and more realistic manner.

Feedback: david.whitehouse@netzerowatch.com

via Net Zero Watch

https://ift.tt/EaeCY9n

May 10, 2023 at 05:15AM

Royal Dilemma: The People who Most Support Ditching the Monarchy are Climate Alarmists

Essay by Eric Worrall

A hilarious dynamic has emerged in Commonwealth nations, in which the most committed anti-monarchists also want King Charles to help them win the climate war.

Charles Is Not Your Climate King

Angely Mercado
Published 4 days ago: May 6, 2023 at 7:00 pm

It’s true that, compared to other public figures or wealthy celebrities, Charles has a pretty impressive resume of caring about the environment. He’s been championing environmental causes since the 1970s and has been touting crunchy practices like composting for decades. In 2021, as Charles was travelling to the UN climate summit, the Washington Post branded him “the 21st century’s first eco-king.”

But Charles III is not your climate king. He is a wealthy man who takes private jets and was born into a rich ruling family. He’s now the figurehead of a nation facing rising income inequality and more risks and deaths from climate change-related extreme weather. Any actions he’ll take on climate as king will be cosmetic, at best. His job as royalty will be to maintain the status quo — which is the last thing we need as the world keeps getting hotter.

As the head of the royal family, Charles III will unfortunately be called to political neutrality. He can support his preferred causes, but he is limited in straight-up calling out the fossil fuel companies and politics that have made our climate crisis possible.

King Charles III is inheriting the throne during a pivotal time for global climate action. It’s a huge responsibility, but he is not among those on the frontlines of the problems. People displaced by wildfires and victims of heat waves throughout the UK don’t need more words — they need action that Charles won’t be able to take on as king. 

Read more: https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2023/05/charles-is-not-your-climate-king/

The idea of Conservatives being opposed to ditching the royals might seem strange to Americans, but its only strange until you take a closer look at the slimy rogues gallery of recycled neo-communists who are drooling over the opportunity to become our first president, and the partisan constitutional settlements being offered by our far left anti-royalists.

The constitutional settlements being offered by predominantly left wing Aussie anti-royalists bear no resemblance to the US constitutional settlement. For example, in 1999 Australians were offered a puppet presidential Republic, an emasculated figurehead presidency, which would just have been an opportunity for failed former leaders to be appointed by their friends to an easy job with lots of perks, where they could continue sponging off the public purse. Strangely this plan for a Republic didn’t appeal to the Australian public.

Charles might be a climate clown, but his presence as a mostly powerless figurehead in the political systems of commonwealth nations blocks the emergence of something worse – the ascension to high office, of all the despised unwanted politicians we long ago rejected at the ballot box.

If you think this is a bad situation for conservatives, the dilemma for climate activists is even more acute. They are desperate for King Charles to speak out about his climate beliefs, because they believe royalist conservatives in Australia and elsewhere might listen to Charles’ green ravings, like some do in England. Yet at the same time, being mostly communists or far left socialists, ditching the royals and installing a left wing partisan constitution is a priority for them.

It’s going to be very interesting to see how all this plays out.

Personally I think Charles will crack, and restart his ranting about the need for climate action. How can the king stay silent, when he clearly believes the fate of the world hangs in the balance?

Perhaps when Charles politicisation of the throne makes keeping the monarchy intolerable for everyone, we’ll just have to accept whatever insipid, partisan republican settlement is offered, just to get away from the mad climate king.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/zFWNjPL

May 10, 2023 at 04:58AM

How much wind killing do we want?

The stampede to build huge amounts of wind power, on land and at sea, is potentially devastating to a great many species.

The post How much wind killing do we want? appeared first on CFACT.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/yeMWT85

May 10, 2023 at 04:23AM

Mother of all cancer risk assessment regulation found to be science fraud

Climate junk scientist James Hansen wasn’t the first to use the term “loaded dice” in regard to alleged human enhancement of environmental risk. That “honor” goes to Science magazine which use the term in its editorial heralding its May 1957 publication of the foundational paper of all cancer risk assessment, E.B. Lewis’ “Leukemia and Ionizing … Continue reading Mother of all cancer risk assessment regulation found to be science fraud

via JunkScience.com

https://ift.tt/IgB4DQn

May 10, 2023 at 02:34AM