Net zero emissions

[Danllan]

So what would you consider an appropriate level of coercion in the supposedly free and democratic west and what strength of evidence would you require to justify any measures you would be comfortable with?

I think coercion is a word chosen for its connotations, and wrongly so in this instance. I would hope - - that anyone with even approximately average intelligence would not need even to be persuaded after having the evidence adduced and explained. But, certainly, I would penalise those doing obvious wrong, as I would others doing so against the public good in any field; the penalty being commensurate with the offence, starting with small fines and community service and ending with large fines and custodial sentences. Since it would be criminal to damage the environment against the prescribed laws, it is only rational that the criminal standards would apply in terms of deciding upon whether or not to prosecute and whether or not to convict.

 

[Scribus]

I think coercion is a word chosen for its connotations, and wrongly so in this instance. I would hope - - that anyone with even approximately average intelligence would not need even to be persuaded after having the evidence adduced and explained. But, certainly, I would penalise those doing obvious wrong, as I would others doing so against the public good in any field; the penalty being commensurate with the offence, starting with small fines and community service and ending with large fines and custodial sentences. Since it would be criminal to damage the environment against the prescribed laws, it is only rational that the criminal standards would apply in terms of deciding upon whether or not to prosecute and whether or not to convict.

A very legal beagle answer but it ignores the fact that the evidence for climate change and measures proposed to counter it are seriously questioned both from within and without the scientific community. Just who is to choose which evidence is to be adduced and explained?

 

[wanton dwarf]

Great, except for the obvious fact it's wrong. If others don't do it first, then China - I note you have not mentioned the US...? - will have been gifted the rather brilliant come back of 'But you don't...'

Malaysia has said it will send back 3,000 tonnes of non-recyclable plastic waste to countries including the UK, America, Australia and Canada.
https://news.sky.com/story/malaysia...stic-waste-to-uk-and-other-countries-11729886


Thousands of tons of UK plastic dumped across world
https://news.sky.com/story/thousands-of-tons-of-uk-plastic-dumped-across-world-11218595



Three years ago, the UK was exporting half a million tonnes of plastic to China and Hong Kong - accounting for almost two-thirds of all our plastic sent abroad.

Of course, sending material abroad for recycling doesn't necessarily mean it actually gets recycled.

Waste firms in the receiving country may sift through the rubbish, take out the economically valuable material and burn or even dump the rest. The waste industry is notorious in some places for its links with criminal activity
..
According to Ms Sangaralingam, not only is Malaysia receiving more plastic than it can properly dispose of, some of it is low-grade which ends up as landfill. There are also some rogue recyclers who, she says, burn plastic in the open - leading to environmental harm.
..

..
Less than half of all household waste is recycled
Overall recycling figures have stagnated and some councils are burning 80% of all residual waste, including recyclable plastic and paper.
..
The Western Riverside Waste Authority, which covers Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Wandsworth, incinerated 79% as did Lewisham and Tower Hamlets. Slough, Kirklees, Sunderland, Portsmouth and Birmingham councils all incinerated at least 70% of all plastic, paper and household rubbish.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46566795

Hydrogen can be stored elementally, but it is far easier to store in compound form - my guess is that this will be the way forward until technology makes better materials and methods viable. Water is an obvious one and there are many others more appropriate to end-use. But I think it right to note: a) fuel cell derived hydrogen fuel would only be stored for a very short period, often for near-immediate use; and b) that the best shroud to contain hydrogen is thought, by many, to be more hydrogen (concentric flask storage). Effectively reducing escape to zero, since the outermost flask 'leaks' directly to combustion.

Not sure you're right about the speed of atmospheric escape:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...ydrogen-gas-exist-in-earths-atmosphere/302760

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety

"The storage and use of hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy, and its ability to embrittle metals that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation. Liquid hydrogen poses additional challenges due to its increased density and the extremely low temperatures needed to keep it in liquid form."

But I would point out that Hydrogen is already stored .. in Natural Gas ! .. CH4 .. which is CONSTANTLY being made and is constantly being used by natural processes anyway.


If you are going to store Hydrogen in water .. you need to first break the Hydrogen to Oxygen bond .. to enable using the Hydrogen .. you are then going to burn the Hyrdogen to make "Energy" ..

Breaking the bond takes energy .. probably far more than you can every recover from burning Hydrogen .. never mind the fact you will lose energy as Heat and Kinetic losses in first generating the energy to do the Breaking .. definately Thermal energy in Breaking .. and even more Thermal Energy in Burning ..

At each point of energy transference you will be lucky to get an efficiency of above 50% .. so at the end you'll be lucky to get about 25% of the energy you started with .. so you will end up losing far far more energy to create the Hydrogen .. far better NOT TO BOTHER and just use the orignal source of energy in the first place.


Yes a hydrogen atom can move at upto "However, hydrogen in the Earth's Atmosphere will move as fast as 2700 x 6 = 16,200 meters per second or 16.2 kilometers per second."

That's 58,320 Km/H but the Earth's escape velocity is 11.2 Km/s or 40,320 Km/H .. regardless losing Hydrogen to Space which cannot be recovered is not the brightest thing to base a "Renewables" energy system on - especially as all life on Earth depends on H2O.

 

[ollie989898]

Hydrogen is an utter PITA and you need to obtain it first.

Burn our household waste and you won't need anything like as much imported Russian gas.

This zero carbon thing is a load of codswallop.

 

[ollie989898]

Yes, but... China has an overarching aim to become the global economic power and everything else is secondary to that.

And they will be the leading economic power, because they are researching all the cutting edge technologies.

 

[Scribus]

Has Parliament actually debated this legislation?

 

[Scribus]

I don't think is really a party-political or Brexit-related matter and so, I hope, in the discussion of this there will be a consensus reached...

It's a really good goal, not least through being enlightened self-interest, but it is very difficult to see how it is possible without a remarkable amount of statistical manipulation. A few questions occur that will be of relevance to many on her, domestically and commercially:

Will wood-fires be banned? Will petrol / diesel vehicles be banned? Will there be a massive reduction - even a removal - of tax upon renewable energy sources? Will there be exemptions for 'essential' inputs, e.g. fert? Will there be penalties for failure? Will the 'net' factor mean that we can cut only, say, half of what we churn out by having every hedge in the country made into a 'linear' woodland?

I'm sure others will think of other questions, but I can't think of definitive answers for any of mine without an absolutely determined government in place to make it work - and that seems unlikely. But it could work, if we had a proper industrial strategy (@Yacker) which recognised the importance and potential of leading in the renewable energy industry.

On that tack, if I had the power, I'd give an encouraging ten year tax-break to renewable development, manufacture and installation, and then phase in tax very gradually, say at 5% every five years until it matched the general rate.

It is certainly a political issue but, like brexit, it will not align itself neatly with party divides, begging the question as to whether we are overdue for a rearrangement of the political spectrum.

That aside, what we appear to have is a government steered by a committee led by a Tory politician, John Gummer, who has various pokers in the environmental fire -

He also chairs the sustainability consultancy Sancroft International, recycler Valpak,[2] GLOBE International – the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gummer

Hardly the most disinterested and impartial set of credentials for a person in such a position. However, credit where it is due, he did spend £36,000 on his garden thanks to the taxpayers generosity in supporting MP's and their onerous expenses.

Now the government has come up with some scheme to reduce net carbon emissions to zero without a single thought in their darling little heads as to the wider social implications, let alone hold debate in parliament or a wider public discussion. No, what is to happen is that the evidence is to be 'adduced and explained' to the plebs instead, but who is to choose the various items of evidence to be put forward is not mentioned, perhaps we should leave such trivial matters to the pairing of a teenage schoolgirl with cute pigtails and a great national treasure who would otherwise be planting cabbages in his retirement.

Other supporting actors in this great fraud include the great and the good within the scientific community, but even they, try as they might to come up with the answer the government wanted, stopped short of boldly declaring that we are all going to die unless something is done. The small print in the COMEAP report paints a rather different picture to the headlines that surrounded it.

The arguments over the ramifications of brexit are wide and loud yet this move, instigated without any vote or consultation with the electorate, may well have a far wider impact on society and the economy. The technocratic faith of the establishment leads them to believe they have the holy answer while the middle class once more finds an excuse for their favourite pastime, instructing the oiks on how they should lead their lives.

I for one, will campaign to ensure that there is no consensus built around the arrogance of politicians and avarice of commerce.